From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA11035; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:09:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA10929 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:09:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i31E9jjq005014 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:09:46 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp113-158.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [150.101.113.158]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i31E8gwn062230; Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:38:42 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] exene and ocaml ? From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Ville-Pertti Keinonen Cc: skaller@users.sourceforge.net, briand@aracnet.com, caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <6C27A642-83BE-11D8-96B0-000393863F70@exomi.com> References: <16491.38344.186267.44292@soggy.deldotd.com> <1080807590.13854.260.camel@pelican> <6C27A642-83BE-11D8-96B0-000393863F70@exomi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1080828521.13854.358.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 02 Apr 2004 00:08:41 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 threading:01 implemented:01 posix:01 threads:01 threading:01 real-world:01 practicality:01 conceptually:01 'real:01 model:01 misses:01 'real:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 17 On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 19:24, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote: > On Apr 1, 2004, at 11:19 AM, skaller wrote: > Yes, my "reasonably well" was in the context of current expectations > and tools. I'd really love for OCaml to have efficient threading > (especially if they were implemented using continuations). > > I wouldn't use or recommend a massively multithreaded approach unless > there was a practical and efficient enough environment available. Indeed it would be a disaster to use Posix threads for this .. > CML, > Oz and presumably Felix would be efficient enough in their threading > concepts, but don't seem to have the real-world practicality of OCaml > (or mainstream languages). I'll admit to not having tested Felix yet, > although I've downloaded it quite some time ago. Conceptually, Felix is much more 'real world' in some ways than Ocaml: it is designed to use the C/C++ object model directly, it is designed to allow almost seamless binding to C/C++ at the source code and object code level. For example to map a C++ type T for use in Felix you just write: type T = "T"; and to make a function T f(T); available you just write: fun f: T -> T = "f($1)"; Where Felix misses out on the 'real world' part is of course maturity: its pre-alpha, and currently there is only one user who is trying to build a game with it; I don't even use it myself at this stage (other than building artificial tests). -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners