From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C803BBAF for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:27:03 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoQBAIbDLUtDww+7kWdsb2JhbACECo4KiT4BAQEBCQsKBxMDpnQpgTKEFYhPAQUEAYEqgi1SBA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,427,1257116400"; d="scan'208";a="39074738" Received: from web111510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.15.187]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 20 Dec 2009 15:27:02 +0100 Received: (qmail 83631 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Dec 2009 14:27:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1261319220; bh=rvt76QE4YsceTAXXIM0tEK+vMfKO7/QAU2LszkLpr6c=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ctbaZiwztTJM1BE0tDiqJN3ufbef8Gf5lJ8St/3FncZwZqu8kojUGdnKcLBRV43rXvzbMXNUBRbiIR2f8ELNqKR0F3HhbMhbOTNdf4HykhYZjiOHWIVG4Iije3UCU0HjIjEmkM/PHF3h+EV4dNKaKEXwMG3yeo3k1609vjTzCds= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IwCz/2uiSnj7gCnFJBpS8DtOMc4bBQKFwENw9sfg3OY12MfJVN+pEBk+iwue5eHl/7KnyAJv5Aytd6veJ9ZZVDpm4yN2J/G4Zu31CWCI1W9Whj5jfhY78Qm6fbZtfJCzLcWHSw4JfHRiTQWtaO7yEfbDAFwTJzqi0Gxx2cuWVos=; Message-ID: <794713.82307.qm@web111510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: aiybsM8VM1kTyKEZf1LyryPIshwwoTzmJNKqBHnE1gnRQWlRZR3TE.s31sSdBIga1irTd7m4SE1TVDvCyQxgKSTcAPu.bzSTfThdbvPdEwhFrqcGrE_EGCk2SOAaVTjjSjzjOFaW.fh4NavMlGQ6gHJa0XqSaNUyz6s7FloabROh19hc.WwFkTGEFcdWwiD3FQybG27SWoN9vmnp_2mZi4lygxaTPrToL9s19QaFDC84WObGbuM3YJhTYMeGDNhy3V.uPkQPNfEfj2rM8OdP9DcZ_PIdzgYfRNNUfLSWo_W9OG8Ntw01ALo8jvcI7zohdejAUnEG7ZRDkoEXlBdILuw- Received: from [213.205.71.56] by web111510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:27:00 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/9.0.19 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:27:00 -0800 (PST) From: Dario Teixeira Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml is broken To: Erik Rigtorp Cc: caml-list In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 bug:01 bug:01 ocaml:01 homogeneous:01 caml-list:01 concurrent:04 passing:05 shared:06 context:06 inria:06 long:06 arguments:07 standard:07 irrelevant:07 Hi,=0A=0A> It's too bad that INRIA is not interested in fixing this bug. No= =0A> matter what people say I consider this a bug. Two cores is standard by= =0A> now, I'm used to 8, next year 32 and so on. OCaml will only become=0A>= more and more irrelevant. I hate to see that happening.=0A=0AThis is a per= ennial topic in this list. Without meaning to dwell too=0Along on old argu= ments, I simply ask you to consider the following:=0A=0A- Do you really thi= nk a concurrent GC with shared memory will scale neatly=0A to those 32 cor= es?=0A=0A- Will memory access remain homogeneous for all cores as soon as w= e get into=0A the dozens of cores?=0A=0A- Have you considered that many Oc= aml users prefer a GC that offers maximum=0A single core performance, beca= use their application is parallelised via=0A multiple processes communicat= ing via message passing? In this context,=0A your "bug" is actually a "fe= ature".=0A=0ABest regards,=0ADario Teixeira=0A=0A=0A=0A