On 04/21/2011 09:03 PM, Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
> For the initial question: If OCaml gets proper parallelism, I believe
> it is good not to neglect the needs of scientific users (to which I
> belong) ― maybe they cannot be 100% met due to other considerations
> but rejecting them from the start does not feel right to me.

I think nobody is rejecting the needs of scientific users. OCamlPro
actually started a long term project called "numcaml", to provide
something similar (including syntactically) to numpy, which, I think,
turned a lot of scientific users into Python fans. We are also thinking
about how to address fine-grain parallel numerical computations using
our current multicore solution.

My point was just that J.H. has been writting everywhere, in every
single forum in the world, that OCaml is bad because it could not
address fine-grain parallelism, for his personal needs. I thought it was
time for the silent majority of satisfied OCaml users to say, here and
in those forums, that OCaml is actually addressing their most important
concerns.

Best,
Fabrice