On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 23:08 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [...] > Anyway, my comment is strictly on that discussion, not on the entire > effort within the Python community. When we were working on D's > concurrency model Bartosz pushed for a while quite strongly in favor of > STM, but I predicted it won't pan out, at least not in time for us to > rely on it. It was 2008 and the issues with STM were by then understood > but not resolved properly. It's still too early to make a verdict one > way or another. There's a steady stream of related publications coming. > It will be interesting to see what happens.
The current hints appear to be that STM does not scale well. I haven't done any experiments myself, and I haven't seen real data from people who do claim to have. The languages with STM that I know are Haskell and Clojure. Haskell has fundamental problems with parallelism because it is a lazy language -- though there is a lot of work trying to deal with this generally, and Simon Peyton-Jones and Simon Marlowe have their data parallel stuff which works well from what I can see. Clojure will have to be investigated further... -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part