From: "Joseph R. Kiniry" <kiniry@acm.org>
To: OCAML <caml-list@inria.fr>
Cc: Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>,
Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>,
Mattias Waldau <mattias.waldau@abc.se>
Subject: Re: JIT-compilation for OCaml?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:08:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <37650000.978725335@kind.kindsoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010105135258.C5122@lambda.u-strasbg.fr>
Hello Sven,
Apologies for the off-topic-ness of this post, but since OCaml will be
running on this architecture soon, and since this set of software is fairly
innovative, it is likely of interest to the readers of this list.
--On Friday, January 05, 2001 13:52:58 +0100 Sven LUTHER
<luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:06:09AM -0800, Joseph R. Kiniry wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit. I meant that if you are
>> developing and Open Source product and you'd like large scale
>> involvement, choosing OCaml as a source language isn't in your best
>> interest. While it is true that you are likely to get higher quality
>> people involved, the source pool is several orders of magnitude smaller
>> than that of Java.
>
> A, yes, but is it not said that ocaml programs are easier to write and
> smaller in size, thus easier to maintain ? would this not compensate the
> lower number of available developpers ?
You'll get no argument for me on these points. The only maintainence
issues with OCaml are from a
non-language-expert-business-investor-standpoint: the lack of a large
corporation to support tools, the small number of existing expert
programmers as a hiring pool, and the standard chicken-and-egg argument
("well no one _else_ is using this language, so it _must_ not be a good
choice!"). Note that *I* do not subscribe to the above, but I am only one
of many investors/participants. In my other company, as in my research
work, I'm the boss, so to speak, so we hear a different tune there.
> BTW, about the amiga/TAO stuff ? what is your feeling about the virtual
> code or whatever they call it ? i had the feeling that it was very i386
> like, but haven't looked at it very long, but it would make it kind of a
> heresy to longtime amiga users ?
The "new" Amiga <http://www.amiga.com/> is really a set of technologies
built on top of a virtual operating system from the Tao Group
<http://www.tao-group.com/>. It is a processor agnostic, clean-room OS
built from the ground up to be scalable (i.e. run on anything from a
wristwatch to a multi-processor server), portable (i.e. runs on over 20
processor architectures), high performance (mostly due to an advanced
load-time compiler that does data-flow analysis), and of elegant design
(innovative "tools" as a unit of memory management and compilation,
asynchronous messaging-based communication throughout, multiprocessor ready
from day zero, etc.).
I'm really impressed with the Tao codebase. The VP design is the nicest
assembly language I have ever used. (I know most Motorola, MIPS, and Intel
assembly languages, as a reference). It is object-based(!), has unlimited
registers, has a clean and flexible syntax, and (by design) is very
efficiently translated to machine code.
For the hard-core Amiga user of old (of which I am one, as well as a C=64
and NeXT geek), it is nice to see the name rebirthed with innovative
technology, but it is unclear if the team can follow-through with their
typically-Amiga grandiose visions (your standard ubiquitous distributed
components discovering each other at run-time &c).
The Amiga SDK is available for Linux and Windows and comes with extensive
documentation, support for several languages (C, C++, Java, Python, Perl,
and I've already ported Eiffel), and a whole host of new and innovative
technologies. And at $99, it's hard to beat if you are into tinkering with
really innovative stuff.
Joe
--
Joseph R. Kiniry http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~kiniry/
California Institute of Technology ID 78860581 ICQ 4344804
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-06 22:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-01-02 16:07 Markus Mottl
2001-01-02 18:16 ` Mattias Waldau
2001-01-02 19:30 ` Markus Mottl
2001-01-03 12:15 ` Alain Frisch
2001-01-04 8:37 ` Fabrice Le Fessant
2001-01-04 9:04 ` Alain Frisch
2001-01-03 13:23 ` Mattias Waldau
2001-01-03 14:25 ` Markus Mottl
2001-01-03 14:40 ` STARYNKEVITCH Basile
2001-01-03 15:51 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-03 17:50 ` Markus Mottl
2001-01-05 0:30 ` Michael Hicks
2001-01-08 9:59 ` Xavier Leroy
2001-01-09 6:40 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-03 17:49 ` Joseph R. Kiniry
2001-01-03 18:19 ` Markus Mottl
2001-01-03 18:38 ` Joseph R. Kiniry
2001-01-03 18:58 ` Markus Mottl
2001-01-03 19:06 ` Joseph R. Kiniry
2001-01-04 22:32 ` Jonathan Coupe
2001-01-07 0:16 ` Chris Hecker
2001-01-05 12:52 ` Sven LUTHER
2001-01-05 20:08 ` Joseph R. Kiniry [this message]
2001-01-09 7:14 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-09 6:50 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-05 12:39 ` Sven LUTHER
2001-01-05 5:48 ` Vitaly Lugovsky
2001-01-03 15:24 Jerry Jackson
2001-01-04 14:12 ` Alan Schmitt
2001-01-09 17:09 Dave Berry
2001-01-11 6:38 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-09 17:18 Dave Berry
2001-01-11 7:00 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-11 10:01 ` Alain Frisch
2001-01-12 7:55 ` John Max Skaller
2001-01-11 12:45 Dave Berry
2001-01-12 8:23 ` John Max Skaller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=37650000.978725335@kind.kindsoftware.com \
--to=kiniry@acm.org \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr \
--cc=mattias.waldau@abc.se \
--cc=mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox