From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <raould@gmail.com>
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 BBD72BC57
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:36:05 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokDANYy6UtKfVK0mGdsb2JhbACRY4w8CBUBAQEBAQgJDAcRIq0AggCFKy6ITgEBAwWFCwSDQA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,209,1272837600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="51032608"
Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180])
  by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 11 May 2010 19:35:57 +0200
Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so1050802wyb.39
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=f3zZM1I/PWG7i0P0hN8FFVPnOPfF8wct5uBMOAcUg2s=;
        b=oDmSlNYsyLoN4yn84Akja9SFa93znl847/Qwq/sbmNIDtuSJBjewrjN1lDYqBJnYd6
         gqM0PoVu8cQYI9wZ/ViGWeyBCJcR6IHyVMyPhJWqs76UcQEgxEjVvv6vTRxcgm1O9hrQ
         YYh9hq3IEQffRZyRPhpfeFDLeaNruU8KppXQk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=INW10jQVZYscPmmjcY3BPwEQMk1Z5rlT/OcCmsC0GAfpsBpfhJMzmbMm5kspSlWXWP
         4tON4KjHlzNqrxyDxsE+2Ud/M210lWOWm0DwHqoopLPk8efRSLQaBF99od2O10PwRBgF
         BZSQJS9bSBGO+piZX0qWMUw+yoU9X0nVNN0uM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.174.76 with SMTP id w54mr3621131wel.213.1273599357184; 
	Tue, 11 May 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.11.139 with HTTP; Tue, 11 May 2010 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201005111239.30902.peng.zang@gmail.com>
References: <w2t320e992a1005051158pcdb30e5w48409aa8b6e464e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <07b101caf08b$3e5022c0$baf06840$@com>
	 <AANLkTik7gzvUrLntCLbL7gQow4RCzkXDPwCNiCHIE6Or@mail.gmail.com>
	 <201005111239.30902.peng.zang@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:35:57 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXi9Y8Ja2EAfgbRYEi5hQ_xU3EIo_oOOj0xoa-@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] about OcamIL
From: Raoul Duke <raould@gmail.com>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 peng:98 peng:98 wrote:01 compile:01 caml-list:01 native:03 concurrency:04 tue:06 machine:09 lack:12 11,:13 2010:83 pointed:16 impression:17 

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Peng Zang <peng.zang@gmail.com> wrote:
> And of course as you pointed out you can always compile OCaml code to native
> machine code which has always had good performance.

i was under the impression the main complaint is lack of top-notch
support for concurrency?