Mailing list for all users of the OCaml language and system.
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kuba Ober <ober.14@osu.edu>
To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Why OCaml sucks
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:13:12 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200805120913.12803.ober.14@osu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74cabd9e0805082145p120ce487h6c1194d87f3f8396@mail.gmail.com>

> > 1. Lack of Parallelism: Yes, this is already a complete show stopper.
> > Exploiting multicores requires a scalable concurrent GC and message
> > passing (like JoCaml) is not a substitute. Unfortunately, this is now
> > true of all functional languages available for Linux, which is why we
> > have now migrated entirely to Windows and F#. I find it particularly
> > ironic that the Haskell community keep hyping the multicore capabilities
> > of pure code when the rudimentary GC in Haskell's only usable
> > implementation already stopped scaling.
>
> Fork?  For something like a raytracer, I do not see how threads would be
> any more useful than fork.  For the UI, the native threads suffice.  For
> windows...  well f*ck windows.  When was the last time you heard of a cool
> new windows app anyway?  MSFT has killed their own platform with bad
> engineering decisions.

I wouldn't generalize like that. Where I work we use Qt (a C++ framework) and 
can relatively trivially deploy on three major platforms (Linux, Windows and 
OS X). It's been a long time since I dealt directly with any Windows 
deficiencies per se. Trolls had to deal with them for sure, but they did the 
job so that I wouldn't have to. Most cool applications are multi-platform...

I can't comment about the original lack of parallelism issue, but the 
platform-bashing comment is just gibberish to me. I'm all for cool, inspiring 
platforms, and I use OS X and Linux exclusively at home/school, but Windows 
has made some headway in recent years and for me XP is quite reasonable as 
long as you don't deal with driver writing. The latter is still better than 
in WIN95 DDK days, but the toolset (apart from the F#-based tools) is 
obscenely out-of-date, just as it was in 1995. Then there are some regressed 
pieces of Linux which are quite a reality check given the whole "we support 
old hardware" propaganda (steer clear of SCSI tape drives), so for me 
personally I have equally many bash-Windows arguments as I have bash-Linux 
ones.

Cheers, Kuba


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-05-12 13:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-05-09  0:39 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
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 [this message]
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=200805120913.12803.ober.14@osu.edu \
    --to=ober.14@osu.edu \
    --cc=caml-list@yquem.inria.fr \
    /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