| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??
|
To: |
Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why?? |
|
From: |
John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:51:55 -0400 |
|
Cc: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "George S. Coker, II" <gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick Colp <pjcolp@xxxxxxxxx>, Alex Zeffertt <Alex.Zeffertt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:52:25 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<49DA08E4.4000303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<C5FA6BCE.2C57B%gscoker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f45b39c0-8c4a-41d9-bd07-0e48a87aa6d4@default> <20090406103321.GA26380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49DA08E4.4000303@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 02:51:32PM +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> >Put another way: xenstored is hardly stretching C's capabilities. xend
> >is hardly stretching Python's (at least now Twisted isn't used). Where
> >is the /need/ for a new, little-understood, language to be used?
> >
> I understand what you means (audience wise it's true), however i think
> that's very misleading to say it's a "new/little-understood" language.
Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant new to Xen. If Xen source base had been
OCaml in the first place, it would be a different matter.
> OCaml has been great to use. Programming the same functional tree store
> with advanced transaction merging capability in the C version would have
> been a major pain, compared to how (almost) easy it was in OCaml.
So, I'm interested: why?
regards
john
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), (continued)
- Re: ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), Anil Madhavapeddy
- Re: ocaml?? why?? (was: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes), John Levon
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??,
John Levon <=
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Patrick Colp
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, John Levon
- [Xen-devel] Re: ocaml?? why??, Vincent Hanquez
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, George S. Coker, II
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Patrick Colp
- Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
Re: [Xen-devel] caml stubdom crashes, Alex Zeffertt
|
|
|
| |
|
Home