Alexy Khrabrov skrev:
Well, it's fun to join the old discussion in the new times. The fact
that computers go multicore at a greater scale makes it recurrent.
Erlang makes concurrency easy due to purity, and OCaml is famous
for being eclectic. Why not embrace Erlang's model by imposing
Luca de Alfaro skrev:
And where else can you find a debugger that can execute code
(or give you the impression it does) backwards?
This is invaluable when trying to find things like where an
exception is thrown: you simply run the code until it exits
throwing the exception, then you back
Peng Zang skrev:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
What do you mean by dynamically load?
You cannot mix native and bytecode generally speaking.
I don't know of any speed comparisons of OCaml bytecode. You can
always compile to native code, which is faster, so I don't understand
Gerd Stolpmann skrev:
This is simply nonsense. Different concurrency techniques
have different problems.
True.
For example, in event
handling-based concurrency you do not need locks, hence
you cannot run into deadlocks.
Yes you can. We've even had to write design rules to this
effect to
Jon Harrop skrev:
On Friday 09 May 2008 13:33:16 Ulf Wiger wrote:
Jon Harrop skrev:
1. Lack of Parallelism: Yes, this is already a complete show
stopper. Exploiting multicores requires a scalable concurrent
GC and message passing (like JoCaml) is not a substitute.
