caml-list - the Caml user's mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks
Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 15:08:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1210338532.6399.35.camel@Blefuscu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805091129.34171.jon@ffconsultancy.com>

On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 11:29 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2008 08:58:26 you wrote:
> > Are you sure or is that just a troll?
> 
> My point is that actual performance on real code is what matters and not the 
> number of optimizations that might theoretically apply. From the measurements 
> I have seen and done, Haskell is substantially slower despite its many extra 
> optimizations.

Ok, I'll take your word on that.


> > > 10. Limited standard library: I agree but this is only an issue because
> > > we are not able to fix the problem by contributing to the OCaml
> > > distribution.
> >
> > That's the whole idea of Community Caml / Batteries Included. Really, feel
> > free to contribute.
> 
> I thought Community OCaml was about tacking things on externally using macros 
> and extra libraries.

Yes and no.

* Batteries Included = 
** take the legacy standard library, ExtLib, Camomile, SDFlow and other
libraries (list undecided so far, but pcre, ocamlnet, camlzip are strong
candidates), add some glue to get them all to work together, and build a
comprehensive external library
** do the same thing for macros
** distribute everything as a GODI package with lots of dependencies

* Community OCaml = use the same codebase but 
** completely replace the legacy standard library
** turn this into a full, community-maintained, OCaml distribution.

In either case, the objective is to achieve something JDK-like in its
reach. 

> > Why a full new language? I may understand the interest of writing a
> new 
> > compiler for OCaml (or whichever other language) and gradually
> improving
> > the forked compiler, but that's a different story altogether.
> 
> A concurrent GC is the only major issue. Everything else is
> comparatively 
> easy.

Well, if you get to write a concurrent GC for the core of OCaml, feel
free to alert the community. People might be willing to help with
advanced features.

Cheers,
 David

-- 
David Teller
 Security of Distributed Systems
  http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
 Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act
brings liquidations. 


  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-09 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-09  0:39 Why OCaml sucks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  1:11 ` [Caml-list] " Matthew William Cox
2008-05-09  5:10   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  4:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Arthur Chan
2008-05-09  5:09   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 11:12     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 11:58       ` Gabriel Kerneis
2008-05-09 12:10         ` Concurrency [was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks] Robert Fischer
2008-05-09 12:41         ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 12:49         ` David Teller
2008-05-09 18:10       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:40         ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 20:55           ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 10:56             ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 21:00           ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 21:13             ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:26               ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 23:01                 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10  7:52                   ` Richard Jones
2008-05-10  8:24                     ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10  8:51                       ` Richard Jones
2008-05-13  3:47           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:25         ` David Teller
2008-05-09 22:57           ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-10 19:59           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:39             ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-11  3:58               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-11  9:41                 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-12 13:22             ` Richard Jones
2008-05-12 18:07               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:05                 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-13  0:42               ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13  1:19                 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13  2:03                   ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13  3:13                     ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:33             ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 21:22               ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 13:00     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 17:46       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 18:17         ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10  1:29           ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 14:51             ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:19               ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:58                 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:39               ` Mike Lin
2008-05-12 13:31           ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 18:18             ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 13:13   ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:32     ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-09  6:31 ` Tom Primožič
2008-05-09  6:46 ` Elliott Oti
2008-05-09  7:53   ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09  7:45 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09  8:10   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09  9:31     ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09  7:58 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 10:29   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 13:08     ` David Teller [this message]
2008-05-09 15:38     ` Jeff Polakow
2008-05-09 18:09       ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:36         ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:34         ` Richard Jones
2008-05-14 13:44           ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-09  8:29 ` constructive criticism about Ocaml Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09  9:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 10:23   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:01     ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 22:23       ` David Teller
2008-05-10  8:36       ` Christophe TROESTLER
2008-05-10  9:18         ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 11:37   ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ralph Douglass
2008-05-09 13:02     ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 12:33 ` not all functional languages lack parallelism Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 18:10   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:26     ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-12 12:54 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 14:16   ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 13:33     ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 13:49       ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 14:01         ` Brian Hurt
2008-05-13 14:13           ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 15:18             ` Berke Durak
2008-05-14  4:40             ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 14:25           ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-14  4:29           ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 13:01 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:18   ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 19:41     ` Karl Zilles
2008-05-13 13:17     ` Kuba Ober

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1210338532.6399.35.camel@Blefuscu \
    --to=david.teller@univ-orleans.fr \
    --cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
    --cc=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).