From: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 04:58:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200805110458.19162.jon@ffconsultancy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84fa750ef0446e7c0473286ec5fc7e8b@terzarima.net>
On Saturday 10 May 2008 22:39:33 Charles Forsyth wrote:
> >2. How do we avoid excessive copying? What if each parallel thread only
> >requires part of a data structure, should we dissect the data structure to
> >alleviate message passing?
>
> this seems to suggest that message passing implies serialising the data
> structure. perhaps i missed something, though.
Copying is the obvious solution in OCaml because there is no easy way to share
OCaml values between processes.
There are alternatives (like referencing shared memory as custom blocks and
managing deallocation manually) but they are substantially more complicated
and it is not clear whether or not they will be faster in OCaml because
indirection is required to disambiguate the heaps for the GC and prevent it
from traversing the shared memory.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-11 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-09 0:39 Why OCaml sucks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 1:11 ` [Caml-list] " Matthew William Cox
2008-05-09 5:10 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 4:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 5:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 11:12 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 11:58 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2008-05-09 12:10 ` Concurrency [was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks] Robert Fischer
2008-05-09 12:41 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 12:49 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:40 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 20:55 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 10:56 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 21:00 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 21:13 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:26 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 23:01 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 7:52 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-10 8:24 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 8:51 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-13 3:47 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:25 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 22:57 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-10 19:59 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:39 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-11 3:58 ` Jon Harrop [this message]
2008-05-11 9:41 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-12 13:22 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-12 18:07 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:05 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-13 0:42 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 1:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 2:03 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 3:13 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:33 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 21:22 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 13:00 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 17:46 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 18:17 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 1:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 14:51 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:58 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:39 ` Mike Lin
2008-05-12 13:31 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 18:18 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 13:13 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:32 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 6:31 ` Tom Primožič
2008-05-09 6:46 ` Elliott Oti
2008-05-09 7:53 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 7:45 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 8:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 9:31 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 7:58 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 10:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 13:08 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 15:38 ` Jeff Polakow
2008-05-09 18:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:36 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:34 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-14 13:44 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-09 8:29 ` constructive criticism about Ocaml Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 9:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 10:23 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:01 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 22:23 ` David Teller
2008-05-10 8:36 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2008-05-10 9:18 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 11:37 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ralph Douglass
2008-05-09 13:02 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 12:33 ` not all functional languages lack parallelism Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:26 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-12 12:54 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 14:16 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 13:33 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 13:49 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 14:01 ` Brian Hurt
2008-05-13 14:13 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 15:18 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-14 4:40 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 14:25 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-14 4:29 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 13:01 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:18 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 19:41 ` Karl Zilles
2008-05-13 13:17 ` Kuba Ober
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200805110458.19162.jon@ffconsultancy.com \
--to=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).