From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ED1BC88 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:27:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from [128.93.8.130] (macadam.inria.fr [128.93.8.130]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14HRCbR017246 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:27:12 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20050204105819.GC498@first.in-berlin.de> References: <8008871f05020213362d21ba87@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c50971$baad4840$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <1107403128.32586.223.camel@pelican.wigram> <20050203173556.4acec1c5.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <009a01c50a1e$f6c92080$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <4202A6AA.3030807@trdlnk.com> <20050203233950.GB7121@furbychan.cocan.org> <20050204105819.GC498@first.in-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <00F5B298-76D2-11D9-866D-000D9345235C@inria.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Damien Doligez Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:27:11 +0100 To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4203B070.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; damien:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 oliver:01 bandel:01 wrote:01 computations:01 ...:98 doligez:01 doligez:01 string:03 bytes:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:39:50PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: >> Got to agree with you on this one ... At least we'll soon all be >> using 64 bit computers where OCaml doesn't suffer this limitation. On Feb 4, 2005, at 11:58, Oliver Bandel wrote: > Well, but even on those computers will be restrictions in the size. On 64-bit computers, the maximum string length is 2^56-9 bytes. > And I'm sure that with more powerful computers, there will be > more ressource-needing applications/calculations/computations > and so maybe there will be another problem then (maybe it needs > some decades to reach that limit?). If Moore's law holds until then, and starting from a gigabyte now, it will take about 40 years before you get a machine powerful enough to run into that limit. And the transistors of that machine will be smaller than protons. I hope we'll get 128-bit machines before then. -- Damien