3 ms·

> Its unfortunate the cleaned up syntax never took off, and that OCaml dropped the ball on multicore for over a decade. It just shows the mindset of its devs w

> Its unfortunate the cleaned up syntax never took off, and that OCaml dropped the ball on multicore for over a decade. It just shows the mindset of its devs was a little behind the realities of the industry, or they simply didn't care about concurrency. In comparison, I like how Python always tries to be on top of things by exploring new PEPs.

toolslive 2y ago
I'm going to be sarcastic _and_ on topic (you baited me): yeah, like how python completely solved concurrency & parallelism.
sidkshatriya 2y ago
> It just shows the mindset of its devs was a little behind the realities of the industry, or they simply didn't care about concurrency. OCaml cared about concurrency (e.g. Lwt, Async are old libraries that provide concurrency -- they didn't need multicore Ocaml). OCaml didn't care so much about true _parallelism_ in threads until recently. Parallelism was to be obtained via processes and not threads in pre OCaml 5.0. True parallelism in threads is available in OCaml >= 5.0 Python is actually trying to go multicore too ! OCaml however beat it to the punch. The strengths of Python are elsewhere though, a topic for another day.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  > Python is actually trying to go multicore too ! OCaml however beat it to the punch. This is debating the relative finishing places of the two runners finishing last in the marathon after most of the other runners have already gone home and had their dinner.
  - neonsunset 2y ago
    If you care about efficient parallelism, F# might give you much better experience and results.
    - jimbokun 2y ago
      As well as many, many other programming languages!
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
ackfoobar 2y ago
To be pedantic, concurrency in OCaml has been fine with lwt. Single threaded concurrency, not unlike how JS does it.
abathologist 2y ago
OCaml has had great concurrency support for years and years. Multicore is only a question of shared memory parallelism.

toolslive 2y ago

I'm going to be sarcastic _and_ on topic (you baited me): yeah, like how python completely solved concurrency & parallelism.

sidkshatriya 2y ago

> It just shows the mindset of its devs was a little behind the realities of the industry, or they simply didn't care about concurrency. OCaml cared about concurrency (e.g. Lwt, Async are old libraries that provide concurrency -- they didn't need multicore Ocaml). OCaml didn't care so much about true _parallelism_ in threads until recently. Parallelism was to be obtained via processes and not threads in pre OCaml 5.0. True parallelism in threads is available in OCaml >= 5.0 Python is actually trying to go multicore too ! OCaml however beat it to the punch. The strengths of Python are elsewhere though, a topic for another day.

jimbokun 2y ago
> Python is actually trying to go multicore too ! OCaml however beat it to the punch. This is debating the relative finishing places of the two runners finishing last in the marathon after most of the other runners have already gone home and had their dinner.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  If you care about efficient parallelism, F# might give you much better experience and results.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    As well as many, many other programming languages!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

ackfoobar 2y ago

To be pedantic, concurrency in OCaml has been fine with lwt. Single threaded concurrency, not unlike how JS does it.

abathologist 2y ago

OCaml has had great concurrency support for years and years. Multicore is only a question of shared memory parallelism.