On 10/25/05, Nicolas Cannasse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We are now running machines that are 1ghz to 3ghz. > > > > To suggest that OCAML is the only way or that it is "super critical" > > to making a fast compiler is, to me, ludicrous. > > That was actually my comment :) > > But I never said that Ocaml was the only way to make a compiler. > Try to read my mail again. > > Basicly the meaning was that OCaml and in general ML languages (Haskell, > SML, ...) are the best languages available for writing compilers. It's a big > lost of time of trying to write a compiler in C/C++ as the author suggested. > To give you an order of comparison, it would be the same as writing for > example a Bank account manager GUI system in assembler ! > This does make sense to me.
> This is not about speed. OCaml is very fast and that's a big plus, but the > flexibility and the power of the language enable people to write compilers > in days instead of months/years using other languages. That require a lot of > training before, since you need to learn a new language, a new syntax, and > even a new way of thinking about programming. But looks like the vast > majority of people seems to be always afraid of learning new things ;) > There was obviously some blending between luke hubbards comment that Ocaml is why MTASC is fast, and your comments. Thanks for the clarification. I do think that you could have said this the first time instead of the thing about suggesting he "needed to learn about compilers". I dont mean to beat a dead horse, I just wanted to clarify my point. I think your insight on the issues is quite instructive and is incredibly valuable to others on this list. Regards Hank _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
