On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 06:57:58AM -0000, o...@okmij.org wrote: > > Pierre-Alexandre Voye wrote: > > > Note that if Ocaml compiler would have a C backend, all these problems or > > architecture port would disappear... > > Ocaml would have more than 30 target[1] > > In my Opinion, trying to generate assembler is a bad idea because modern CPU > > require a lot of work to generate good assembler. > > There are many good reasons to avoid C when compiling functional > languages, especially strict ones. > > One often hears that ``C is a portable assembler''. That has never > been true. One of the reasons is that every assembler I know has the > "jmp" instruction, which, without affecting SP, transfers control > anywhere, out of a procedure or in the middle of a procedure, out of a > module or into a module. C is built around the stack discipline -- > after all, C is a descendant of Algol 60. (Although C has labels, they > are limited, even in GCC). Although Algol-60 researchers quickly > recognized the value of tail recursion, all that knowledge was lost in > the Dark Ages. [...]
This somehow is a good example on "OCaml maintenance status..:" thread and "Some comments on recent discussions" thread... If this thread comes to a conclusion, the conclusion maybe can be sent to the OCaml core team... ... if it has new insights. But my guess is, that we end at a point, where OCaml already is, because I think these kind of dicsussions were already made, when the design was chosen. If something new evolves it could be sent to the core team. But I just doubt, that this will happen here ;) Ciao, Oliver -- Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
