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 AD94DBC88 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14HxQNt015078 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:26 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA00210 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:25 +0100 (MET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-065-153.arcor-ip.net [145.254.65.153]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j14HxOWc015064 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:24 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5758DA75A9; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:25 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 18:59:24 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Estimating the size of the ocaml community Message-ID: <20050204175924.GC809@first.in-berlin.de> References: <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> <20050204105819.GC498@first.in-berlin.de> <00F5B298-76D2-11D9-866D-000D9345235C@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00F5B298-76D2-11D9-866D-000D9345235C@inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203B7FE.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4203B7FC.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 damien:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 bandel:01 damien:01 caml-list:01 beginner's:01 beginners:01 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 Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 06:27:11PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote: > > > >On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:39:50PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote: > >>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. > > On Feb 4, 2005, at 11:58, Oliver Bandel wrote: > >Well, but even on those computers will be restrictions in the size. > > On 64-bit computers, the maximum string length is 2^56-9 bytes. OK, that's enough until next summer (I mean 2006) ;-) [...] > > If Moore's law holds until then, and starting from a gigabyte now, > it will take about 40 years before you get a machine powerful enough > to run into that limit. And the transistors of that machine will be > smaller than protons. Well, Quarks and subQuarks or something? > > I hope we'll get 128-bit machines before then. Well... it's some decades ago (I think in the mid-80ies), there was an article about a 128-Bit-processor, very soon to be available on the chip-market. But I don't know if that article was on an april issue of the magazine. Ciao, Oliver > > -- Damien > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs -- "Here at michigan state university, my computational linguistics professor had us learn ocaml for the class and we used it exclusively. I like it so much better than c++! Hope this helps." (Jeff Shaw on caml-list)