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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024E4BBAF for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:42:20 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvEBAI8OvUrUnwdkkWdsb2JhbACCIJhhAQEBAQkLCgcTBLwIhB4F X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,454,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="47308876" Received: from relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net ([212.159.7.100]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 26 Sep 2009 03:42:20 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhQGAM4OvUrUnw6T/2dsb2JhbACCINUphB4F Received: from ptb-relay03.plus.net ([212.159.14.147]) by relay.pcl-ipout02.plus.net with ESMTP; 26 Sep 2009 02:42:20 +0100 Received: from [87.114.87.187] (helo=leper.local) by ptb-relay03.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1MrMIl-0006QJ-QP for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:42:19 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OC4MC : OCaml for Multicore architectures Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:53:36 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <4ABD51BA.4010008@gmail.com> <60914.70.26.44.194.1253925950.squirrel@pegasus.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <60914.70.26.44.194.1253925950.squirrel@pegasus.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200909260253.36868.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 3d1cda09b0af418a705114f91ad4b473 X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 predictable:01 predictable:01 2009:98 carleton:98 frog:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 off-topic:02 naive:03 library:03 perhaps:05 parallel:05 ltd:87 machines:12 On Saturday 26 September 2009 01:45:50 kcheung@math.carleton.ca wrote: > Perhaps an off-topic and naive question: What does it take to beat F# and > still have predictable performance? Provided you're talking abouts today's machines and don't care about pause times, HLVM with a parallel GC (not unlike the oc4mc one) and a task library would beat F# and still have predictable performance. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e