model of concurrency?

[Xan]

Hi,

Just curious: I did not find anything in web: what is the planned
model of concurrency in Ceylon? Actors-based? Ala Golang? Threads?

Thanks in advace,
Xan.

[Gavin King]

Hi Xan,

my view is that (at least for now) would should leave that up to
libraries / frameworks. There's been some quite interesting innovation
in this space recently and I don't want to go prematurely
standardizing on one particular model that doesn't fit all usecases.

Instead, what we hope to do is provide underling metaprogramming
facilities (interception, etc), that let you implement a range of
models, all the way up to stuff like STM.

HTH

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ceylon-users?hl=en.
>

--
Gavin King
gavin...@gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://ceylon-lang.org
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org

[xancorreu]

Al 24/02/12 22:35, En/na Gavin King ha escrit:

> Hi Xan,
>
> my view is that (at least for now) would should leave that up to
> libraries / frameworks. There's been some quite interesting innovation
> in this space recently and I don't want to go prematurely
> standardizing on one particular model that doesn't fit all usecases.
>
> Instead, what we hope to do is provide underling metaprogramming
> facilities (interception, etc), that let you implement a range of
> models, all the way up to stuff like STM.
>
> HTH
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Xan<xanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just curious: I did not find anything in web: what is the planned
>> model of concurrency in Ceylon? Actors-based? Ala Golang? Threads?
>>
>> Thanks in advace,
>> Xan.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ceylon-users?hl=en.
>>
>
>

Thank you very much for your answer, Gavin.
The option of externalize in libraries is good option, but in my opinion
there should be present ;-)
Some languages put the concurrency in libraries and never code it ;-)

I think it's a priority: scala, go and other languages has its success
for having very easy libraries (built-in or external) of concurrency.

Thanks another way,
Xan.

[Sander Postma]

Please take a look at "Ateji PX" if you haven't already. With 256 core
processors under development it's my view important that a new
language has good paralellism support. I am not so sure libraries/
frameworks can solve this unless ceylon has compiler plugins support.

Sander

On Feb 24, 10:35 pm, Gavin King <gavin.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Xan,
>
> my view is that (at least for now) would should leave that up to
> libraries / frameworks. There's been some quite interesting innovation
> in this space recently and I don't want to go prematurely
> standardizing on one particular model that doesn't fit all usecases.
>
> Instead, what we hope to do is provide underling metaprogramming
> facilities (interception, etc), that let you implement a range of
> models, all the way up to stuff like STM.
>
> HTH
>

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Xan <xancor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Just curious: I did not find anything in web: what is the planned
> > model of concurrency in Ceylon? Actors-based? Ala Golang? Threads?
>
> > Thanks in advace,
> > Xan.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/ceylon-users?hl=en.
>
> --
> Gavin King

> gavin.k...@gmail.comhttp://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavinhttp://ceylon-lang.orghttp://hibernate.orghttp://seamframework.org

[Tako Schotanus]

Hi Sander,

have you seen anything in the implementation of Ateji PX that wouldn't be possible in Ceylon the way it is currently designed?

I'm not sure if any of us have time to delve into this, but from the little I've seen so far of what they offer Ceylon would be in a good position to offer what they have with "just" a library, no changes necessary to the language. If you could give us some idea what important features you think would be missing that would be great.

Cheers,
-Tako

[Sander Postma]

The similar functionality could be implemented in other ways, like Parallel.call(method1, method2) or Parallel.foreach(..) or whatever, but since Ceylon is redefining so much syntax compared to Java it might be nice to have  some new syntax features for parallel programming. Like at least the

for || (...)  {  

}

and

void main(String[] args) {

  [

    || print("Hello");

    || print("World");

  ]

}

Or at least put in some interfaces so that it's easy for a third party to write a concurrency provider to implement a library like Ateiji without having to mess with Eclipse.

On Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:41:48 AM UTC+1, Tako Schotanus wrote:

Hi Sander,

have you seen anything in the implementation of Ateji PX that wouldn't be possible in Ceylon the way it is currently designed?

I'm not sure if any of us have time to delve into this, but from the little I've seen so far of what they offer Ceylon would be in a good position to offer what they have with "just" a library, no changes necessary to the language. If you could give us some idea what important features you think would be missing that would be great.

Cheers,
-Tako

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:34, Sander Postma  wrote:

Please take a look at "Ateji PX" if you haven't already. With 256 core
processors under development it's my view important that a new
language has good paralellism support. I am not so sure libraries/
frameworks can solve this unless ceylon has compiler plugins support.

Sander

On Feb 24, 10:35 pm, Gavin King  wrote:

> Hi Xan,
>
> my view is that (at least for now) would should leave that up to
> libraries / frameworks. There's been some quite interesting innovation
> in this space recently and I don't want to go prematurely
> standardizing on one particular model that doesn't fit all usecases.
>
> Instead, what we hope to do is provide underling metaprogramming
> facilities (interception, etc), that let you implement a range of
> models, all the way up to stuff like STM.
>
> HTH
>

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Xan <xancor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Just curious: I did not find anything in web: what is the planned
> > model of concurrency in Ceylon? Actors-based? Ala Golang? Threads?
>
> > Thanks in advace,
> > Xan.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/ceylon-users?hl=en.
>
> --
> Gavin King

> gavin.k...@gmail.comhttp://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavinhttp://ceylon-lang.orghttp://hibernate.orghttp://seamframework.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tako Schotanus]

True, but really I don't see much benefit with that syntax over simply:

    parallel(method1, method2, .....)

and with closures (whose syntax hasn't been defined yet), you'd get something like:

   parallel(

      (){ print("hello"); },

      (){ print("hello"); }

   )

And the other stuff I saw seemed like we could handle with annotations.

So again, I'm not sure that it would be worth the trouble introducing special syntax when there doesn't seem to be much benefit over what is already possible with the language as it is now. You'd have to come up with some convincing examples.

-Tako

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/ceylon-users/-/45NmuhJKRvkJ.

To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ceylon-users...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom Bentley]

and with closures (whose syntax hasn't been defined yet),

Do you mean with anonymous functions/lambdas?

[Tako Schotanus]

Yes sorry

On Mar 12, 2012 3:45 PM, "Tom Bentley" <tom.b...@cantab.net> wrote:
>
>
>> and with closures (whose syntax hasn't been defined yet),
>
>
> Do you mean with anonymous functions/lambdas?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ceylon-users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to ceylon...@googlegroups.com.