From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr 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 968DFBB81 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:56:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k28BuKru006694 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:56:21 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp9-113.lns1.syd7.internode.on.net [59.167.9.113]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k28Bu6Xm084887; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:26:08 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from skaller@users.sourceforge.net) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] STM support in OCaml From: skaller To: Gerd Stolpmann Cc: padator@wanadoo.fr, Asfand Yar Qazi , caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <1141817549.10771.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1474655.1141812700555.JavaMail.www@wwinf1632> <1141817549.10771.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Async P/L Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:04:56 +1100 Message-Id: <1141819496.20944.534.camel@budgie.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 440EC664.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 async:01 2006:98 consultants:98 wrote:01 sourceforge:01 sourceforge:01 caml-list:01 realtime:01 concurrency:02 misleading:03 anyway:06 wed:07 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 12:32 +0100, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > Anyway, I think this question is misleading. The point is not to > establish locking schemes that use the hardware better (i.e. that are > faster), but to help programmers writing correct code. My aim would be to do both -- they're not independent. Who cares about concurrency if not to try to do some job faster? And of course it's no good if you do the wrong thing faster :) -- John Skaller Async PL, Realtime software consultants Checkout Felix: http://felix.sourceforge.net