It would be more productive, if you could describe what exactly you expect from a good concurrent/parallel programming language. Julia already has built-in coroutines (Tasks) and multiprocessing, and will get shared-memory parallelism (multithreading) in observable future. The only thing in other languages that is missing from Julia is supervision (e.g. like in Erlang), but it looks easily doable on user level and really depends on what you want to achieve.
On Monday, September 14, 2015 at 2:58:52 PM UTC+3, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > > [First Julia claims good support with Python by using PyCall). As Python > 3.5 was just released I wander if that still holds or needs fixing: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/ > > for concurrency (or otherwise). I know I could just check out.. but] in > general I wander how appropriate Julia is now, instead of (or with > best-in-class languages): Erlang etc. > > > I think Julia's focus is serial AND parallel coding (but concurrency to a > lesser degree? I'm aware there are changes in 0.4). > > I know concurrency is not the same as parallel, but needed for it or > useful on its own. > > I understand Erlang (or Elixir, "based on it"), maybe the best > language/implementation for concurrency, what it's made for. Julia may not > compare, just yet. Maybe something is needed but it has the right > foundation? Or not (has mutable state..). > > > Some really like Go (for those who do not like a functional language), for > stuff like this, and it has N:M threading. Is that a showstopper for Julia? > Any benchmarks on how scalable Julia is vs. Go? Any idea how difficult it > would be to add N:M threading? > > -- > Palli. > > > >
