Re: tiny toplevel

[Georges Mariano <georges.mariano@inrets.fr>]

Markus Mottl wrote:

> Interesting question - I tried it out on a Sun Ultra 5:
thanks ;)


> I don't know how Java scales up with more interesting programs, but I don't
> expect any surprises here... - so if somebody wants to go "embedded", don't
> do it with Java... ;)
Statitics are good but your conclusion is wrong because
who said that "embedded" interpreters are "standard" interpreters ??

Obviously this is not the case, and taking Java as an example is
also wrong because "embedded JAVA" is not JAVA but somthing close
to JavaCard (in the SmartCards **specific** context), 
so different constraints, specifications, and language
 
Suppose that you are able to define a JAVA language subset
wich is small enough to be embedded in, say, smartcards,
but in the same time, you're not able to define the same subset for Ocaml
(recall, it's a supposition!! :-)
=> you can't have OScard (Ocaml for Smart Cards :-)
despite the comparison we made on "initial" interpreters...

If I understand P. Weis, one thing is to remove Object Programming from
OCaml, then you have something close to CamlLight toplevel, ok.
In the context of an embedded system you may remove I/O filesystem
functions ?? (I don't know exactly what is an embedded system...)

and what else ??


 
-- 
> Georges MARIANO                 tel: (33) 03 20 43 84 06
> INRETS, 20 rue Elisee Reclus    fax: (33) 03 20 43 83 59
> 59650 Villeneuve d'Ascq         mailto:mariano@terre.inrets.fr
> FRANCE.                         
> http://www3.inrets.fr/Public/ESTAS/Mariano.Georges/
> http://www3.inrets.fr/BUGhome.html         mailto:Bforum@estas1.inrets.fr