11 ms·

For a smart contract platform, it's probably ok that ocaml isn't multithreading friendly. But what a disappointment if this is still the case: https://ib-krajew

For a smart contract platform, it's probably ok that ocaml isn't multithreading friendly. But what a disappointment if this is still the case: https://ib-krajewski.blogspot.com/2015/11/ocaml-and-multithreading.html https://ib-krajewski.blogspot.com/2015/11/ocaml-and-multithr... At this point, if a language doesn't have first class support for multithreading and static typing, I wouldn't start a new project in it. Nullability support is pretty high up there too, but that is a far more tractable problem.

haskellandchill 8y ago
Nullability? Why?
gmfawcett 8y ago
Modern OCaml multithreading is still a couple years away, the current (very promising) approach is still at the design/experimental stage. Out of curiosity, what is it about smart contracts that makes multithreading so important? Why isn't multiprocessing enough? [edit: sorry, I mis-read your comment. You said that multithreading probably isn't a big deal for this problem.]
- rbjorklin 8y ago
  It doesn’t necessarily have to be that far out: https://twitter.com/kc_srk/status/994535108127404038?s=20 https://twitter.com/kc_srk/status/994535108127404038?s=20
  - gmfawcett 8y ago
    That would be very nice. I was basing my comments on these meeting notes [1], which seem a bit more conservative. (Multicore should be available experimentally in early 2019, but not ready for production use. I guess the next steps depend on how well those experiments pan out!) https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202?u=gasche https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Modern OCaml multithreading is still a couple years away It's been a couple of years away for the last 10 years.
  - gmfawcett 8y ago
    I know, and I hate sharing "it's coming soon" stories for that reason. But the recent multicore progress-update does seem well conceived, and so personally I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. :)
    - laylomo2 8y ago
      For the record, the current story is that they are merging some multicore things into 4.08, and it will only be available as an "experimental" feature. So even after it is in the compiler, it will be a couple more revisions before it is fully accepted.
      - gmfawcett 8y ago
        Right, I linked to these summary notes in a different comment: https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202?u=gasche https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...
- woolvalley 8y ago
  Not for smart contracts, just as a language in general.
jnbiche 8y ago
> Nullability support Nullability? As in null references? The "billion-dollar mistake" (Tony Hoare, referring to Algol), also frequently called the "worst mistake in computer science"?
- woolvalley 8y ago
  No as in something like swift optionals: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/swift/swift_optionals.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/swift/swift_optionals.htm It's also called nullability support, you can see it in use in this article: http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2011/10/29/a-proposal-for-null-safety-in-dart/ http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2011/10/29/a-proposal-for-...
  - Raphael_Amiard 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean, optionals are just a sum type (says so in your own article) and Ocaml support for them is first class, also option is a built in Ocaml type http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-beta1/html/api/Option.html http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-b...
  - scns 8y ago
    Julia and C# call it Nullable, other Languages Option or Maybe. Option type on wikipedia, cant paste the link somehow.
    - jnbiche 8y ago
      Oh, option types! I don't know Julia or C#, so never heard this called nullability before. On any case, as someone else pointed out, OCaml had supper for option types built in, through sum types. I agree that sum types are indispensable in a modern programming language.
ernst_klim 8y ago
>But what a disappointment if this is still the case Well, it's not yet ready, but it's incoming https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202 https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...

haskellandchill 8y ago

Nullability? Why?

gmfawcett 8y ago

Modern OCaml multithreading is still a couple years away, the current (very promising) approach is still at the design/experimental stage. Out of curiosity, what is it about smart contracts that makes multithreading so important? Why isn't multiprocessing enough? [edit: sorry, I mis-read your comment. You said that multithreading probably isn't a big deal for this problem.]

rbjorklin 8y ago
It doesn’t necessarily have to be that far out: https://twitter.com/kc_srk/status/994535108127404038?s=20 https://twitter.com/kc_srk/status/994535108127404038?s=20
- gmfawcett 8y ago
  That would be very nice. I was basing my comments on these meeting notes [1], which seem a bit more conservative. (Multicore should be available experimentally in early 2019, but not ready for production use. I guess the next steps depend on how well those experiments pan out!) https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202?u=gasche https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...
HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Modern OCaml multithreading is still a couple years away It's been a couple of years away for the last 10 years.
- gmfawcett 8y ago
  I know, and I hate sharing "it's coming soon" stories for that reason. But the recent multicore progress-update does seem well conceived, and so personally I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. :)
  - laylomo2 8y ago
    For the record, the current story is that they are merging some multicore things into 4.08, and it will only be available as an "experimental" feature. So even after it is in the compiler, it will be a couple more revisions before it is fully accepted.
    - gmfawcett 8y ago
      Right, I linked to these summary notes in a different comment: https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202?u=gasche https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...
woolvalley 8y ago
Not for smart contracts, just as a language in general.

jnbiche 8y ago

> Nullability support Nullability? As in null references? The "billion-dollar mistake" (Tony Hoare, referring to Algol), also frequently called the "worst mistake in computer science"?

woolvalley 8y ago
No as in something like swift optionals: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/swift/swift_optionals.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/swift/swift_optionals.htm It's also called nullability support, you can see it in use in this article: http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2011/10/29/a-proposal-for-null-safety-in-dart/ http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2011/10/29/a-proposal-for-...
- Raphael_Amiard 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, optionals are just a sum type (says so in your own article) and Ocaml support for them is first class, also option is a built in Ocaml type http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-beta1/html/api/Option.html http://batteries.forge.ocamlcore.org/doc.preview:batteries-b...
- scns 8y ago
  Julia and C# call it Nullable, other Languages Option or Maybe. Option type on wikipedia, cant paste the link somehow.
  - jnbiche 8y ago
    Oh, option types! I don't know Julia or C#, so never heard this called nullability before. On any case, as someone else pointed out, OCaml had supper for option types built in, through sum types. I agree that sum types are indispensable in a modern programming language.

ernst_klim 8y ago

>But what a disappointment if this is still the case Well, it's not yet ready, but it's incoming https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202 https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a-june...