From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA27909 for caml-red; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:57:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA26849 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:31:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from orion.inrets.fr (orion.inrets.fr [137.121.1.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e79CVhX07942 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:31:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from deneb.inrets.fr by orion.inrets.fr (8.9.3/8.7.1); Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:31:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from terre.inrets.fr by deneb.inrets.fr (8.7.6/8.7.6); Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:31:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from inrets.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by terre.inrets.fr (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA20773; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 14:31:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <39914EAB.6506B2F5@inrets.fr> Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:29:31 +0000 From: Georges Mariano Organization: INRETS-ESTAS X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12 i586) X-Accept-Language: fr-FR, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Markus Mottl , "caml-list@inria.fr" Subject: Re: tiny toplevel References: <85256935.0059D0CD.00@D51MTA04.pok.ibm.com> <20000809132941.A16537@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.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