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 30D24BC88 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:50:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-052-111.arcor-ip.net [145.254.52.111]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14Gnw9O002804 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:49:58 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id C203BA7277; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:58:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:58:19 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Message-ID: <20050204105819.GC498@first.in-berlin.de> References: <8008871f05020213362d21ba87@mail.gmail.com> <000f01c50971$baad4840$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <1107403128.32586.223.camel@pelican.wigram> <20050203173556.4acec1c5.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> <009a01c50a1e$f6c92080$0100a8c0@mshome.net> <4202A6AA.3030807@trdlnk.com> <20050203233950.GB7121@furbychan.cocan.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050203233950.GB7121@furbychan.cocan.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203A7B6.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 serialize:01 computations:01 ocaml-core:01 hair:98 ...:98 ...:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:39:50PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:22:47AM +0100, Thomas Fischbacher wrote: > > Oh, by the way, there is one more thing which I consider a really > > grave issue, which gave us quite a lot of grey hair already: Ocaml > > strings have this stupid limitation to 16 MB, which means in particular > > that if you serialize a truly large intermediate state of, say, a long > > and complicated calculation which accidentally got a bit larger than this > > limit (while you did not expect that), well... > > Got to agree with you on this one ... At least we'll soon all be > using 64 bit computers where OCaml doesn't suffer this limitation. Well, but even on those computers will be restrictions in the size. And I'm sure that with more powerful computers, there will be more ressource-needing applications/calculations/computations and so maybe there will be another problem then (maybe it needs some decades to reach that limit?). Is the 16MB string-length really a hardware-dependency? Maybe changing string-representation could help even on 32 Bit machines to have not such a problem. But maybe a BigStrings/LongStrings-module would do that better (because changing the string-representation in the OCaml-core may be a harder problem...?!) Ciao, Oliver