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.  

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

> CML, 
> Oz and presumably Felix would be efficient enough in their threading 
> concepts, but don't seem to have the real-world practicality of OCaml 
> (or mainstream languages).  I'll admit to not having tested Felix yet, 
> although I've downloaded it quite some time ago.

Conceptually, Felix is much more 'real world' in some ways than
Ocaml: it is designed to use the C/C++
object model directly, it is designed to allow almost seamless
binding to C/C++ at the source code and object code level.
For example to map a C++ type T for use in Felix you just write:

	type T = "T";

and to make a function

	T f(T);

available you just write:

	fun f: T -> T = "f($1)";

Where Felix misses out on the 'real world' part is of course
maturity: its pre-alpha, and currently there is only one
user who is trying to build a game with it; I don't even
use it myself at this stage (other than building artificial
tests).

--

John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net



-------------------
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