From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_FAIL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B826BBAF for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:36:08 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEABtLu0pQRFuw/2dsb2JhbADYFoQcBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,446,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="36761988" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 24 Sep 2009 19:36:07 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MqsEh-0001xV-3V; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:36:07 +0100 Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:36:07 +0100 To: Philippe Wang Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures Message-ID: <20090924173607.GA7518@annexia.org> References: <200909241252.24209.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20090924123940.GA16175@usha.takhisis.invalid> <200909241409.56894.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <20090924164933.GA5637@annexia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Richard Jones X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0200,:01 0100,:01 ocaml:01 vastly:01 haskell:01 2009:98 2009:98 warming:98 sml:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 python:03 languages:03 On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 06:56:16PM +0200, Philippe Wang wrote: > On Sep 24, 2009, at 18:49 GMT+02:00, Richard Jones wrote: > > >On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:09:56PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > >>Fair enough. I think this is the single most important development > >>OCaml has > >>seen since its inception so I would personally drop OCaml in favor > >>of oc4mc > >>even if it meant reverting to 3.10.2. > > > >I think 'personally' is the key word there. You forget that people > >are quite happily programming in very slow languages like Perl, > >Python, Ruby and Visual Basic, and those people vastly outnumber the > >ones using F#, Haskell, OCaml, SML etc. (They don't even have static > >safety, dammit!). > > Should we tell them that using CPU for nothing (side-effect for using > a "slow language") has a bad effect on global warming? Could it be a > wake-up call? :-p I've been telling them ... Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat