From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3M9C0Gl025941 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:12:00 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuwBAEdFsU3U4xEKkWdsb2JhbACEUKEOFAEBAQEJCwsHFAMiiHCpGJEBAoEng1B9BIkOiSY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,253,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="97745049" Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2011 11:11:55 +0200 Received: from office1.lan.sumadev.de (dslb-188-097-003-060.pools.arcor-ip.net [188.97.3.60]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LdIov-1PV6IF25dh-00iVVK; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:11:54 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.111] (546BE640.cm-12-4d.dynamic.ziggo.nl [84.107.230.64]) by office1.lan.sumadev.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1BC8D5F701; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:11:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerd Stolpmann To: Fabrice Le Fessant Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <4DB136FB.6050302@inria.fr> References: <76544177.594058.1303341821437.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4DAFE141.7080003@inria.fr> <4DAFF442.8000806@lexifi.com> <799994864.610698.1303412613509.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4DB136FB.6050302@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:11:52 +0200 Message-ID: <1303463512.8429.1344.camel@thinkpad> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:fp/RJ0Sp2pVAi5Porfp8ZXJ1qguX7LM0DJXM/ZuKYnx 6bDSKNJVMMKwQgrUTWgiComlT/RzMBjimZQKBQ2Ove8KK9X/4C TEcPnpE15zxnOwJp2ednVjGI4d9uiKUX81EUzK7j0a1j5QSapK VGTm4z7DJfoQRvaiER+mzrP8nL123ZM0CHyeBxXpokvhq1Zubf d58NLpWKsbLxtQSi/S46g== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p3M9C0Gl025941 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficient OCaml multicore -- roadmap? Am Freitag, den 22.04.2011, 10:06 +0200 schrieb Fabrice Le Fessant: > On 04/21/2011 09:03 PM, Christophe TROESTLER wrote: > > For the initial question: If OCaml gets proper parallelism, I believe > > it is good not to neglect the needs of scientific users (to which I > > belong) ― maybe they cannot be 100% met due to other considerations > > but rejecting them from the start does not feel right to me. > > I think nobody is rejecting the needs of scientific users. OCamlPro > actually started a long term project called "numcaml", to provide > something similar (including syntactically) to numpy, which, I think, > turned a lot of scientific users into Python fans. We are also thinking > about how to address fine-grain parallel numerical computations using > our current multicore solution. > > My point was just that J.H. has been writting everywhere, in every > single forum in the world, that OCaml is bad because it could not > address fine-grain parallelism, for his personal needs. I thought it was > time for the silent majority of satisfied OCaml users to say, here and > in those forums, that OCaml is actually addressing their most important > concerns. That would be good. I've just released an example of using Netmulticore for fine-grained parallelism: http://blog.camlcity.org/blog/multicore3.html J.H. is certainly right that he demands shared memory. Certain algorithms cannot be done without. But shm is possible, even with current ocaml - and Netmulticore demonstrates it. AFAIK the other multi-process environments lack it. Gerd > Best, > Fabrice > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gerd Stolpmann, Bad Nauheimer Str.3, 64289 Darmstadt,Germany gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de Phone: +49-6151-153855 Fax: +49-6151-997714 ------------------------------------------------------------