RE: [ObjectWeb architecture] just an idea for (Java) native compilation

["Christophe Ney" <christophe.ney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dominique,

This is something we should definitively explore. Will you
get the chance to attend our meeting this Friday? If so we
will be very happy to learn more from your effort then.

Thanks,
Christophe

Christophe Ney
President of the Executive Committee
ObjectWeb Consortium

mailto:christophe.ney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.objectweb.org
phone +33 4 76 61 54 87
mobile +33 6 87 76 96 14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dominique.devito@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:dominique.devito@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 10:00 PM
> To: architecture@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [ObjectWeb architecture] just an idea for (Java) native
> compilation
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is just an idea for (Java) native compilation.
> 
> INRIA has an outstanding knowledge about native compiler 
> technology. To be more precise, INRIA has developped a native 
> compiler for the "Objective Caml" language. Caml is a 
> strongly-typed functional programming language from the ML 
> family. OCaml (Objective Caml) and Caml Light are two open 
> source implementations of Caml developed at INRIA 
> Rocquencourt, projet Cristal. See <http://caml.inria.fr/> and 
> <http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/>.
> 
> INRIA has started at January 2001 the Caml consortium (like 
> the ObjectWeb consortium) : the Caml consortium federates the 
> design and development of the Caml language and its 
> programming environment. The Objective Caml (OCaml) compiler 
> is released by the Caml Consortium and performs very well : 
> Objective Caml ranks 2nd on speed (between C and C++) on Doug 
> Bagley's computer language shootout ! See 
> <http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/>.
> 
> So, why not joining Caml & ObjectWeb consortiums strengths 
> for developping a Java compiler ? One way could/would be to 
> develop a bridge Java->OCaml as OCaml's object-oriented 
> features are similar to Java's object-oriented features 
> (Ocaml also includes functional features, module features...).
> 
> What do you think about this idea ? Silly idea :-) ? Good idea ?
> 
> Best regards,
> Dominique
> 
>