On 04/21/2011 01:23 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:
> The OCaml team at INRIA are not motivated to do this because it does not
> constitute research, would probably make Coq slower and would burden them
> with maintaining irrelevant features.

You think the programmers in the world that are only interested in
floating-point intensive computations, with fine-grain concurrency, are
a huge majority. I think they are not so many. Can we do a better job of
quantifying this ?

> OCaml users just migrate to other languages that are closer to what they
> want rather than spending years learning how to build a parallel OCaml, then
> doing it and then building a community around it. The only notable exception
> might be Jane St. Capital because they have the resources and a vested
> interest in performance. There are other large companies invested in OCaml,
> like Citrix, but they aren't so interested in parallelism.

That's probably the reason why so many scientists use Python instead of
OCaml, because it is faster with better multicore support ?  I always
thought Python was slower than OCaml, and had no multicore support...

Fabrice