2011/12/25 Tom Murphy <amin...@gmail.com> > On the other hand: > I'd _strongly_ argue against "making up our minds" about definitions > within the Haskell community. Most of these concepts aren't > Haskell-specific. > An example of something to avoid is our definitions of "concurrency" > and "parallellism." We as a community have specific, good definitions of > each term. [1] So does the Erlang community. [2] Yet the definitions don't > have anything to do with each other, which makes talking across communities > more difficult. > > > amindfv / Tom > > > [0] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Eager_evaluation > > [1] > http://learnyousomeerlang.com/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-concurrency#dont-panic, > paragraph 4 > > [2] > http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multicore-programming.html, > "Defining concurrency and parallelism" >
I kindly beg to differ. To me concurrency and parallelism have global and cross-language definitions. The links you gave don't only define "concurrency" and "parallelism" in absolute as they focus their definition around Erlang's and Haskell's *models *of concurrency/parallelism. Still the broad idea remains. > I'd _strongly_ argue against "making up our minds" about definitions within the Haskell community. Most of these concepts aren't Haskell-specific. My referencial was Haskell-centric. And we can go by steps: first come to a consensus within the Haskellers and then give broad definitions that concerne every language.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
