Are you saying a future Java compiler will be able to just magically parallelize arbitrary for loops (wow, how?), or are you hinting at the ability to generate multiple loop bodies and fall back in case of conflict/escape detection? In the latter case, that's not inference, that's just a costly optimistic optimization border-lining brute-force problem solving.
On Jan 7, 2:24 pm, Ricky Clarkson <ricky.clark...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not outside the ability of a JIT to infer, which brings it back > to being relevant to Java. Incidentally, Scala's in the same position > as Java in that respect; it has no knowledge of whether methods have > side effects. > > > > > > > > > all you need to understand is whether your loop body lends itself to > > parallelization since this is obviously outside the ability of the > > compiler* to magically infer. > > > *Here we're talking mainstream imperative Java/C#, not Haskell/ML/ > > Clojure/Scala or other experimental languages, AFAIK this is still > > called The Java Posse. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
