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=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, NO_REAL_NAME 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 7B5EDBC37 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:23:16 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEADdYv0qGdRUV/2dsb2JhbADSOoQeBQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,461,1249250400"; d="scan'208";a="36945907" Received: from pegasus.math.carleton.ca ([134.117.21.21]) by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 27 Sep 2009 21:23:15 +0200 Received: from pegasus.carleton.ca (pegasus.carleton.ca [127.0.0.1]) by pegasus.math.carleton.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1B07FCADD for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 70.26.46.231 (SquirrelMail authenticated user kcheung) by pegasus.carleton.ca with HTTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60282.70.26.46.231.1254079393.squirrel@pegasus.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <4ABFB7DE.2050108@gmail.com> References: <4E6F3027-5745-462D-AF10-30C868285D28@refined-audiometrics.com> <4ABFA264.7060903@gmail.com> <200909271951.27762.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4ABFB7DE.2050108@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] JIT & HLVM, LLVM From: kcheung@math.carleton.ca To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-4.0.1.el4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml-like:01 ocaml's:01 parallelism:01 ffi:01 ocaml:01 ocaml's:01 ocaml:01 carleton:98 cheung:98 incremental:01 caml-list:01 dispatch:03 perhaps:05 depend:07 likely:08 >> I think >> that an OCaml-like language that addresses OCaml's performance >> (including >> parallelism) and FFI issues would be much more widely useful and is an >> entirely achievable goal. >> > I'm not as committed to abandoning OCaml as you seem, and have hope for > incremental improvement of OCaml's weaknesses, although I realize we'll > have to break a number of things to get to where we both (and likely > many others) want to be. Perhaps the future adoption of OCaml will depend on what OCaml 4.0 is going to be like. If Grand Central Dispatch makes its way into *nix, then I think it is extremely worthwhile for OCaml to have support for something similar. Kevin Cheung.