From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8D9BC37 for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 23:52:10 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjoCAGkLPkvUnwdki2dsb2JhbACDZJdoAQEBCgsKBxEGqXmMZoEtgi5WBA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,486,1257116400"; d="scan'208";a="53086969" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 01 Jan 2010 23:52:10 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAOELPkvUnw4S/2dsb2JhbACDZMIYjGaBLYIuVgQ Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.18]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 01 Jan 2010 22:52:05 +0000 Received: from [87.114.35.173] (helo=leper.local) by pih-relay05.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NQqLk-0002uF-M3; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:52:04 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: Yoann Padioleau Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocaml, llvm and generating code at runtime Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2010 00:06:30 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr References: <405ED4B9-9B3C-4BAA-9C79-C18BB8FDDB4D@gmail.com> <201001012229.02622.jon@ffconsultancy.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201001020006.30463.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 571a95eacbcd2844db3d767c823ed2b3 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 runtime:01 afaik:01 ocaml:01 frog:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 indeed:07 generating:09 ltd:87 think:13 orders:86 orders:86 build:13 On Friday 01 January 2010 22:33:42 Yoann Padioleau wrote: > On Jan 1, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > I think it was a big mistake for the Go developers at Google and the > > Mono developers at Novell to not build upon LLVM. > > > > My main concern about other JITs is maturity: AFAIK LLVM has orders of > > magnitude more users that all of the others combined. > > And ? That maturity gives me confidence in LLVM's reliability and on-going development. > C has many orders of magnitude more users than ocaml ... Indeed. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e