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 4A5BEBCAE for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:47:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.syd.swiftdsl.com.au ([218.214.224.138]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id j5OMlAoc021139 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:47:12 +0200 Received: (qmail 31292 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2005 22:46:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coltrane.mega-nerd.net) (218.214.64.136) by smtp.syd.swiftdsl.com.au with SMTP; 24 Jun 2005 22:46:52 -0000 Received: from coltrane (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coltrane.mega-nerd.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D50187AD7 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:46:48 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:46:48 +1000 From: Erik de Castro Lopo To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] How INRIA people envision OCaml's parallel future? Message-Id: <20050625084648.0b63cfde.ocaml-erikd@mega-nerd.com> In-Reply-To: <5C834758-1619-4325-8CD9-95F8344052A7@csun.edu> References: <3d13dcfc05062300215e4be9ee@mail.gmail.com> <1119547256.4675.12.camel@starlight.valdosta.edu> <1119603126.8485.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3d13dcfc050624023670d3aed2@mail.gmail.com> <3d13dcfc050624055027743339@mail.gmail.com> <5C834758-1619-4325-8CD9-95F8344052A7@csun.edu> Organization: Erik Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42BC8D6E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml's:01 threads:01 threads:01 sardes:01 inrialpes:01 aschmitt:01 sockets:01 nospam:98 siren:98 wrote:01 lisp:01 pipes:02 alain:03 envision:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: Eric Stokes wrote: > Don't worry about it, it really is a valid issue that needs to be > evaluated again every so often. Its true that many people have > noticed the new multi core trend. However it has to be asked whether > threads are really the right answer. They can honestly become a > nightmare quite quickly. The problem with threads is that they were never meant as a solution to the multi-processing problem. See here: http://sardes.inrialpes.fr/~aschmitt/cwn/2002.11.26.html#8 For multiprocessing you need to look at something like shared memory of commumication over pipes or sockets. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ C++ is a siren song. It *looks* like a HLL in which you ought to be able to write an application, but it really isn't." -- Alain Picard (comp.lang.lisp)