From: David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>, caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 00:25:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1210371949.6399.62.camel@Blefuscu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200805091910.41381.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 19:10 +0100, Jon Harrop wrote:
> Parallelism is easy in F#.
Now, that's a cliffhanger. Could you elaborate ?
Cheers,
David
> > I think that the cost of copying data is totally overrated. We are doing
> > this often, and even over the network, and hey, we are breaking every
> > speed limit.
>
> You cannot afford to pay that price for parallel implementations of most
> numerical algorithms.
Er... Not being a specialist, I may be wrong, but I seem to remember
that you can afford that, as long as you're also doing something else
during that copy.
> On the contrary, that is not a theoretical statement at all: it
> already
> happened. F# already makes it much easier to write high performance
> parallel
> algorithms and its concurrent GC is the crux of that capability.
Examples ? Pretty please ?
Cheers,
David
--
David Teller
Security of Distributed Systems
http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act
brings liquidations.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-09 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-09 0:39 Why OCaml sucks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 1:11 ` [Caml-list] " Matthew William Cox
2008-05-09 5:10 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 4:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 5:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 11:12 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 11:58 ` Gabriel Kerneis
2008-05-09 12:10 ` Concurrency [was Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks] Robert Fischer
2008-05-09 12:41 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 12:49 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:40 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 20:55 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 10:56 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-09 21:00 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 21:13 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:26 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 23:01 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 7:52 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-10 8:24 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-10 8:51 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-13 3:47 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:25 ` David Teller [this message]
2008-05-09 22:57 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-10 19:59 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:39 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-11 3:58 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-11 9:41 ` Charles Forsyth
2008-05-12 13:22 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-12 18:07 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:05 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-13 0:42 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 1:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 2:03 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-13 3:13 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 20:33 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 21:22 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 13:00 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 17:46 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 18:17 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 1:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 14:51 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:19 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-10 21:58 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-10 18:39 ` Mike Lin
2008-05-12 13:31 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 18:18 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-12 13:13 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:32 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-09 6:31 ` Tom Primožič
2008-05-09 6:46 ` Elliott Oti
2008-05-09 7:53 ` Till Varoquaux
2008-05-09 7:45 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 8:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 9:31 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-09 7:58 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 10:29 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 13:08 ` David Teller
2008-05-09 15:38 ` Jeff Polakow
2008-05-09 18:09 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:36 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-09 22:34 ` Richard Jones
2008-05-14 13:44 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-09 8:29 ` constructive criticism about Ocaml Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 9:45 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 10:23 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml **cks Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 22:01 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 22:23 ` David Teller
2008-05-10 8:36 ` Christophe TROESTLER
2008-05-10 9:18 ` Vincent Hanquez
2008-05-09 11:37 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Ralph Douglass
2008-05-09 13:02 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml rocks David Teller
2008-05-09 12:33 ` not all functional languages lack parallelism Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-09 18:10 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-09 20:26 ` Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
2008-05-12 12:54 ` [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 14:16 ` Jon Harrop
2008-05-13 13:33 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 13:49 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 14:01 ` Brian Hurt
2008-05-13 14:13 ` Robert Fischer
2008-05-13 15:18 ` Berke Durak
2008-05-14 4:40 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-13 14:25 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2008-05-14 4:29 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 13:01 ` Kuba Ober
2008-05-12 19:18 ` Arthur Chan
2008-05-12 19:41 ` Karl Zilles
2008-05-13 13:17 ` Kuba Ober
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1210371949.6399.62.camel@Blefuscu \
--to=david.teller@univ-orleans.fr \
--cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
--cc=info@gerd-stolpmann.de \
--cc=jon@ffconsultancy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox