Jon Harrop <jonathandeanhar...@googlemail.com> a écrit :
Ben Kuin wrote:
I've introduced the post with some license related concerns, maybe I
should take a step back and think about what I want:
1. - programming in a ML like language ( especially the caml family
since I really like those lightweigt type definitions and the pattern
matching that can be applied on those)
2. - high performance runtime, preferably a jit based vm, no problems
with TCO
3. - a true open source license (approved by Open Source Initiative or
by Free Software Foundation)
I think this 3 point are REASONABLE but the combination of those 3
items is INEXISTENT.
I'm afraid the situation is far worse. Even if you relax your conditions
from "ML-like" to any functional language and even allow broken TCO, there
are not only no language implementations satisfying those weaker conditions
but nobody is even trying to create such a language implementation.
Putting aside an answer I posted this morning on a parallel thread,
I will just present some counter examples to this claim.
Limiting myself to the JVM, and not even trying to be exhaustive, I
can find...
... in the LISP family :
- Clojure - http://clojure.org/ - Eclipse Public License
... in the Scheme family :
- Bigloo - http://www-sop.inria.fr/indes/fp/Bigloo/ - GPL / LGPL
- Kawa - http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/ - X11 / MIT license
- SISC - http://sisc-scheme.org/ - GPL
... in the ML family:
- Yeti - http://mth.github.com/yeti/
... in the Haskell family:
- CAL - http://openquark.org/Open_Quark/Welcome.html - BSD-like license
... in its own family:
- Scala - http://www.scala-lang.org
Moreover, at least Scala and Bigloo deliver excellent performances.
Regards,
Xavier Clerc
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
