From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05AABC51 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:28:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAT3SaZL019621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 04:28:38 +0100 Received: (qmail 8995 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2004 03:28:35 -0000 Received: from dsl081-060-084.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO trout.darktech.org) (chrisrb@[64.81.60.84]) (envelope-sender ) by mail5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 29 Nov 2004 03:28:35 -0000 Received: by trout.darktech.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:35:26 -0800 From: "Evan Martin" Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:35:26 -0800 To: Elthariel Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Could be Caml a good language for sound manipulation ? Message-ID: <20041129033526.GA45540@trout> References: <41AA5C8C.2010503@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41AA5C8C.2010503@free.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Sent-by-Evan: yep X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41AA9764.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; martine:01 caml-list:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 garbage:01 martine:01 short:01 data:02 caml:02 caml:02 partially:02 guess:02 langage:03 encountered:04 problem:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:17:32AM +0100, Elthariel wrote: > I'm quite new in oCaml world, I partially learnt it in my school (EPITA > / Paris) and I'm going to finish this next year. I'm not really ease in > english so my question will be short : do you think Caml coul be a nice > langage for sound manipulation implementation, as Synthetizers, effects > plugins ? I doesn't ask for answer in term of performance which should > be I guess quite good :p, but more in term of software design and > language facility. The main problem I've encountered is that if you allocate memory while processing large streams of data, your program ends up spending a lot of its processing time in the garbage collector. -- Evan Martin martine@danga.com http://neugierig.org