>>>>> "skaller" == skaller  <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

  skaller> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 19:24, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
  >> On Apr 1, 2004, at 11:19 AM, skaller wrote:

  >> Yes, my "reasonably well" was in the context of current
  >> expectations and tools.  I'd really love for OCaml to have
  >> efficient threading (especially if they were implemented using
  >> continuations).
  >> 
  >> I wouldn't use or recommend a massively multithreaded approach
  >> unless there was a practical and efficient enough environment
  >> available.

  skaller> Indeed it would be a disaster to use Posix threads for this
  skaller> ..

Big delay... and then 

I was thinking about that statement... Is that really true ?  If I
only have maybe something like 5-10 threads running, why would it be
such a problem ?

I know almost nothing about the efficiency of posix threads.

Of course the other idea, is that I just run the program in the
virtual machine and use lightweight threads.

>From what I've seen so far, for what I am trying to do the VM may be
good enough.

What does worry me is your comment about garbage collection and
threads.  Are ocaml threads not properly GC'ed ?


Brian

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners