Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#1

Post by amatheus » Sat, May 27, 2023, 1:46 PM UTC

Oxidizing OCaml: Locality
blog.janestreet.com

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#2

Post by daxfohl » Sat, May 27, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#3

Post by Laaas » Sat, May 27, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

I believe this is an explanation (part of) of this proposal:

https://github.com/ocaml-flambda/ocaml-jst/blob/main/jane/do...

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#4

Post by amelius » Sat, May 27, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #2

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

From the article:

> Ideally, a language could provide a spectrum of allocation strategies freely interoperable within a single application. With modes, users can write OCaml with all the usual GC guarantees—but when performance is paramount, opt into the consideration of lifetimes, ownership, and concurrency.

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#5

Post by nerdponx » Sat, May 27, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #2

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

Nim is such a nice language, I would really love to see some high-visibility corporate adoption for it.

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#6

Post by yawaramin » Sat, May 27, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #2

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

Not for Jane Street. They likely have millions of lines written in OCaml and rely heavily on its type system safety guarantees.

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#7

Post by yafbum » Sat, May 27, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

This is a great idea, but I have questions

* Is there a process for upstreaming this into the mainline language, or is this essentially JaneStML now?

* Why choose such an obscure word as `exclave` to indicate return-value optimization? How about `return local` or something similarly approachable?

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#8

Post by geodel » Sat, May 27, 2023, 5:44 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #5

daxfohl wrote: post #2

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

Nim is such a nice language, I would really love to see some high-visibility corporate adoption for it.

I think it is not getting enough usage because a lot of people love that others should adopt it first.

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#9

Post by dlahoda » Sat, May 27, 2023, 6:03 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #5

daxfohl wrote: post #2

Seems like nim could be a good replacement? GC when you need it and explicit control when you need that.

Nim is such a nice language, I would really love to see some high-visibility corporate adoption for it.

where it fits? it feels languages are alive as soon as it fits somewhere. rust and zig for example. seems roc or bosque too. go and ts had fit into some industry slot.

where nim fits? how it can compete with other new fits and other old?

Re: Oxidizing OCaml: Locality

#10

Post by ReleaseCandidat » Sat, May 27, 2023, 6:18 PM UTC

Laaas wrote: post #3

I believe this is an explanation (part of) of this proposal: https://github.com/ocaml-flambda/ocaml-jst/blob/main/jane/do...

It's this proposal: https://github.com/ocaml-flambda/ocaml-jst/blob/main/jane/do... and these problems: https://github.com/ocaml-flambda/ocaml-jst/blob/main/jane/do...