John - that discussion strikes me as perfectly suitable for this list. And your comment doesn't.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fundamentals of New Computing" To:"Fundamentals of New Computing" Cc: Sent:Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:49:35 -0700 Subject:Re: [fonc] Deoptimization as fallback Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not existing programming languages and paradigms. Fundamentals means the fundamentals, not your troubleshooting for your current job. Use the list for what it's said to be for. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: On 30 July 2013 16:22, Casey Ransberger wrote: I was thinking: if a system happens to be running an optimized version of some algorithm, and hit a crash bug, what if it could fall back to the suboptimal but conceptually simpler "Occam's explanation?" This is something the Erlang folk have said repeatedly for a long time now. They claim that upon crashing, the idea of backing off and trying something simpler is part of the Erlang way. However, I don't recall seeing any concrete support for this in OTP. The simpler idea of supervisors and hierarchical crashing-and-restarting larger and larger subunits of the system seems to be what's actually predominantly used. Tony -- Tony Garnock-Jones tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com [3] http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/ [4] _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpriorg [5] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc [6] Links: ------ [1] mailto:tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com [2] mailto:casey.obrie...@gmail.com [3] mailto:tonygarnockjo...@gmail.com [4] http://homepages.kcbbs.gen.nz/tonyg/ [5] mailto:fonc@vpri.org [6] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
