From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id CAA21762; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:30:16 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA20915 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:30:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from brazilnut.cc.columbia.edu (brazilnut.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.59.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hAD1TR121832 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:29:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu (tw304h3.cpmc.columbia.edu [156.111.84.180]) (user=ot14 mech=LOGIN bits=0) by brazilnut.cc.columbia.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAD1TLgF015792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:29:24 -0500 (EST) From: Oleg Trott To: Karl Zilles , John J Lee Subject: [Caml-list] F-sharp (was: Executable size?) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:29:02 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr, dsyme@microsoft.com References: <3FB2CFAF.2020803@1969.ws> In-Reply-To: <3FB2CFAF.2020803@1969.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311122029.02172.oleg_trott@columbia.edu> X-No-Spam-Score: Local X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.35 X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; oleg:01 oleg:01 stunt:01 python:01 fledged:01 selm:01 18.1:99 ifi:01 ocamlc:01 ocamlopt:01 compiler:01 implements:01 caml:01 caml:01 bytecode:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wednesday 12 November 2003 07:26 pm, Karl Zilles wrote: > John J Lee wrote: > > Well, I guess they already have, in the sense that O'Caml has a .NET > > implementation -- right? Always assuming that implementation is more > > than the publicity stunt that the Python one was, of course... > > You're referring to F#. It appears to be more of a research project > than a full fledged implementation: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fa.qe3mh18.1p1m8jk%40ifi.uio.no Cc: Don Syme I'm curious why F# (as I understood it), implements Caml from scratch instead of just changing the bytecode compiler in Caml a bit to suite its needs. By the way, are there benchmarks comparing code produced by ocamlc, ocamlopt and F# (together with SML.NET and SML/NJ for that matter) on a variety of algorithm and numerics-intensive tasks? IIRC, when .NET/C# just came out, there were claims that it was almost as fast as C. -- Oleg Trott ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners