[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> the one that I think has the strongest legs is Erlang > > Funny you should mention that as I'm half way thru the new Erlang book. > This model, if not the language itself, is a perfect vehicle for an > implementation of provisos (much discussed on this list). Using closures, > SBCL threads, and some transparent networking I believe this could all > be implemented in common lisp. Laying this model under the algebra gives > us the ability to write parallel algebra using provisos transparently. > > Tim
Portland Oregon hosted last year's functional languages conference, and I went to two of the language-specific workshops on the weekend before the conference itself. It was an agonizing decision -- all of the major functional languages were represented, and the only one I really consider myself fluent in is a subset of Common Lisp. In the end, though, I chose Erlang and Scheme. For what it's worth, I think the Schemers were right in the great Lisp/Scheme schism, and having spent nearly 3/4 of my career writing assembly language and FORTRAN for a living, I have a great appreciation for the power of low-level languages. They're addicting -- perhaps the most addicting of all is Forth. Also, the Scheme workshop featured a fascinating paper by the Gambit-C Scheme team on Termite, where they've implemented the primitives of Erlang concurrency in Scheme with competitive performance on a number of tests with Erlang itself. Presumably it could be implemented in SBCL if it can be implemented in Scheme. Google for Scheme Gambit Termite and you'll find it. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
