Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Re: OCaml is broken
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2009-12-21 (15:25)
From: Eray Ozkural <examachine@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] general question, was Re: OCaml is broken
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Gerd Stolpmann <> wrote:
> Please don't believe Jon's propaganda. He has just very specific needs
> (high performance computing on desktops), and generalizes them in the
> way "it's not perfect for me anymore, so it's bad anyway". He has been
> doing that for years now, not seeing that he really harms the way ocaml
> is seen by newcomers.

I've seen some interesting parallel programming projects and language
extensions using ocaml. I suppose ocaml could benefit from a
parallelizing compiler & standardized explicit parallelism constructs,
and be a serious contender for the multicore "market". I personally
started out with Haskell with regards to contemporary high-level
languages, and then switched to ocaml because of performance and
sanity. I think I also love the higher-order modules =) I want to
rewrite my stock prediction program in ocaml nowadays. In Haskell, it
was a pain to work on large files. Good thing I lost the code in a hard
drive crash. The way I see it, ocaml has adequate performance, and is
excellent for algorithmic work. I have this half-finished project that features
ocaml implementation of some algorithms. You should see them, they
are almost identical to pseudo-code. I should move that project to ocamlforge.


Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara