"Brian Hurt" <bh...@spnz.org> wrote in messagenews:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/browse_frm/th...
>>That experience debunked the claims of the
> Automatic parallelization, no. You're looking for a silver bullet that
> The biggest problem with parallelized code is the race condition- which
> I've come to the conclusion that functional programming is necessary-
Your conclusion is wrong. No need to be afraid of mutable data... Just stick
> There are two languages I know of in which it maySTM is a no go. Way too much overhead... Here are some of the reasons why:
> be possible to write non-trivial parallel programs correctly and
> maintainably- concurrent haskell with STM and erlang- and both are, at
> their core, purely functional languages.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.