Le 10/12/2011 11:36, Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons a écrit : > At some point I thought that C-- (http://www.cminusminus.org/index.html) > and that type of work would converge to that but it never happened.
Interesting... but it doesn't seem to have evolved since 2007. LLVM and Parrot advertised the same goals, and are uncontroversial technologies in my opinion. I think that to achieve better interoperability and "hype", one of those would be a better fit than the current native and bytecode compilers. I know, either is probably not the best fit w.r.t. performances (actually, I've got some concern about Parrot's design, but that's not the point), but, come on... do people really chose to write in OCaml because of performances? Much more people write in Perl, Python, etc. for reasons that could be applied to OCaml (if there were only the toplevel). By the way, as far as OCaml is concerned, there was also the OCamlIL project [1], but it looks dead now (and .NET is not a technology I would call uncontroversial). [1] http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~montela/ocamil/ Cheers, -- Stéphane -- 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
