On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 06:27:11PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote:
> 
> 
> >On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:39:50PM +0000, Richard Jones wrote:
> >>Got to agree with you on this one ...  At least we'll soon all be
> >>using 64 bit computers where OCaml doesn't suffer this limitation.
> 
> On Feb 4, 2005, at 11:58, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> >Well, but even on those computers will be restrictions in the size.
> 
> On 64-bit computers, the maximum string length is 2^56-9 bytes.

OK, that's enough until next summer (I mean 2006) ;-)


[...]
> 
> If Moore's law holds until then, and starting from a gigabyte now,
> it will take about 40 years before you get a machine powerful enough
> to run into that limit.  And the transistors of that machine will be
> smaller than protons.

Well, Quarks and subQuarks or something?

> 
> I hope we'll get 128-bit machines before then.

Well... it's some decades ago (I think in the mid-80ies), there was an article
about a 128-Bit-processor, very soon to be available on the chip-market.
But I don't know if that article was on an april issue of the magazine.


Ciao,
   Oliver


> 
> -- Damien
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

-- 
"Here at michigan state university, my computational linguistics professor
 had us learn ocaml for the class and we used it exclusively. I like it so
 much better than c++! Hope this helps." (Jeff Shaw on caml-list)