i am probably out of my depth here, i do not have extensive real-world experience with the various ways to approach parallelism and concurrency (to be distinguished of course), more run of the mill stuff. so if i sound like i'm missing your point or am clueless i ask for your patience :-)
> What's the sequential fraction of an arbitrary erlang program, can you even > know (I don't know erlang, so I'm honestly asking)? who cares? or rather, each person has to only care about their own program & situation. maybe their stuff fits erlang. maybe it fits better with something else e.g. LMAX. it. all. depends. :-) everything depends on context. Martin's talk even included the part where he bemoaned that people don't just stay single-threaded and fix their crappy code first. running to concurrency and parallelism is often a cop-out the way i hear him. that could be seen as arguing 'against' erlang. so there are places where your program is mostly sequential and things like "does the GC act like a GIL" do not matter as much as the situation where you are trying to be more concurrent + parallel but not distributed. in those sequential situations, maybe erlang becomes a square peg for the round hole. (although i personally, through suffering as a maintenance programmer, am a *huge* lover of the recursive single assignment "turn" based approach to things, and i love clojure's idea of having a consistent view of the world; most OO people shoot me in the foot a year after they've left the company, with their crappy macaroni code.) > Shared memory pretty darn convenient, and we don't have hundred-core+ boxes > yet. i'm confused in that i thought you wrote shared memory ~= message passing. so why talk about shared memory when that is a lie? just like Martin said, RAM is a lie. why not realize everything is really message passing in the long run, model it as such, understand the issues as such? i do not have a chip on my shoulder about this, i'm just sounding it out / exploring the thought. sincerely. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
