On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:23:22 +0200, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
OCaml has a global interpreter lock which explains its behavior.
Russell
didn't know why the Haskell behavior was so bad. He allowed that it was
possible he was misusing it.
You have just the illusion to have learned something about this.
Trying to
read too much from this single example is very wrong. A single
benchmark,
written by a person not expert in the language, means nearly nothing.
You
need at least a suite of good benchmarks, written by people that know
the
respective languages. And even then, you have just an idea of the
situation.
Fair enough, but in order to dismiss the results I'd need to know *why*
the Haskell version failed so badly, and why such a straightforward
attempt at parallelism is the wrong solution for Haskell.
You shouldn't have to be an expert in a language that is supposedly good
at parallelism in order to get good results from it.
(Russel may or not be an expert, but he is certainly not a novice at FP
or parallelism.)
Basically, I'd welcome an explanatory riposte to Russel's results.
IIRC Haskell's problems with concurrency have roots in its 100% lazy
evaluation.
Anyone wanting more details may find this page useful:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Research_papers/Parallelism_and_concurrency
Petr
