Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998)

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by nv-vn on Saturday April 15, 2017 @07:13PM (#14123380)

Just to clarify, it's not concurrency that's the issue but parallelism. You can write nice concurrent code pretty easily, but writing code that runs on multiple cores is still a problem. Also, if you're interested in using OCaml for web programming, there is some pretty cool stuff you might wanna check out [1] [2] [3]. That said, there's no great solution to the lack of macros :/

[1] https://github.com/dannywillems/ocaml-for-web-programming

[2] https://github.com/rizo/awesome-ocaml#web-development

[3] https://facebook.github.io/reason/ [2]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by rbehrends on Saturday April 15, 2017 @07:19PM (#14123397)

Strictly speaking, it's not parallelism, but multi-threaded code that operates on shared memory and which is not limited to arrays over scalars.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by Symmetry on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:21AM (#14126078)

You're talking about data parallelism, the OP is talking about task parallelism. Since in both cases things are occurring in parallel it makes sense to use 'parallelism' as an umbrella term for both and it was clear from context here that it was task parallelism under discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by rbehrends on Sunday April 16, 2017 @12:18PM (#14126279)

I am talking about both. You can have task parallelism in a distributed system with no shared memory, after all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by ue_ on Saturday April 15, 2017 @07:17PM (#14123390)

Thanks for the links and info, I'll be looking into Ocaml more.

[ Parent | on HN ]