From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p3L8a5T3005146 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:36:05 +0200 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiYBAEDrr03VhjEVmWdsb2JhbAClSBQBAQEBAQgLCwcUJYhwvA2FdgSSMAc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,250,1301868000"; d="scan'208";a="106388847" Received: from ihsmtp01cons.lis.interhost.com ([213.134.49.21]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2011 10:36:00 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.64] ([178.166.9.223]) by ihsmtp01cons.lis.interhost.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:35:50 +0100 Message-ID: <4DAFEC65.7060000@inescporto.pt> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:35:49 +0100 From: Hugo Ferreira User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabrice Le Fessant CC: caml-list@inria.fr References: <2054357367.219171.1300974318806.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8BD02D.1010505@inria.fr> <4D8C73C8.6020801@inescporto.pt> <1301055903.8429.314.camel@thinkpad> <341494683.237537.1301057887481.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4D8C944A.9060601@inria.fr> <4D8CB859.9040709@inescporto.pt> <4D8CDDCC.4010000@ens-lyon.org> <029701cbff90$7a874510$6f95cf30$@ffconsultancy.com> <76544177.594058.1303341821437.JavaMail.root@zmbs4.inria.fr> <4DAFE141.7080003@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <4DAFE141.7080003@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2011 08:35:50.0368 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E809E00:01CBFFFF] Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Efficient OCaml multicore -- roadmap? Fabrice, Don't mean to stoke this fire but.... On 04/21/2011 08:48 AM, Fabrice Le Fessant wrote: > 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 ? > Some of us are interested in parallel computation for symbolic manipulation. In my case I am manipulating sets of literals in predicate logic. I am sure this is also useful in other areas such ans ILP, graph mining, frequent pattern mining, etc. >> 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... > Maybe the issue here is not why people use Python but why more people don't use Haskell, ML, Ocaml, F#, etc. Regards, Hugo F. > Fabrice >