Alexy Khrabrov skrev:
Well, it's fun to join the old discussion in the new times. The fact
that computers go multicore at a greater scale makes it recurrent.
Erlang makes concurrency easy due to purity, and OCaml is famous
> for being eclectic. Why not embrace Erlang's model by imposing
> limitations on what can be in threads -- keeping them pure?
Erlang processes are not pure, but they do have their own
memory heap, making it possible to do stop-and-copy GC per
process. I think the share-nothing model is more important
than purity.
There are some functions that allow Erlang processes to update
"global state" (e.g. the ETS hash and ordered_set tables), but
they are ensured to be atomic by the runtime system. You could
model each of these functions using normal erlang processes.
BR,
Ulf W
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
