Since you already have some experience with JoCaml, would you mind sharing some code examples, or slides that you have? I would like to learn more about it.
On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 4:23:57 PM UTC-5, Ian MathWiz wrote: > > I've seen some other feature/roadmap ideas on this list, so I assume this > is the place for those. If it's not, please let me know. > > I've been using ML-based languages for almost a year now, and there are > two such languages that I've particularly grown to love. The first is, of > course, ATS. The second is a language called JoCaml > <http://jocaml.inria.fr/>, which is a language that augments OCaml with a > construction for concurrency and distributed programs called the join > pattern. > > While I'm aware that ATS has pthreads, I think join patterns have a number > of advantages that warrant their inclusion as features in the language. > First, join patterns are highly intuitive and elegant, and it's quite > simple to spawn and consume new processes. Second, while threads are highly > efficient for use with imperative programming, join patterns blend > seamlessly with functional programming. (For an example of this, as well as > a neat introduction to join patterns, see this paper > <http://lampwww.epfl.ch/funnel/esop2000.html>.) Third, the join calculus > is practical to use in distributed systems. This is because it doesn't > contain some constructs in other process calculi that are difficult to > implement without the client-server model. Personally, I think being able > to create distributed systems with ATS would help it see greater adoption, > as these applications are going to get more widely used in the future. > > I'm currently trying to figure out the difficulties in implementing these > in ATS. JoCaml compiles to OCaml bytecode, while ATS compiles to C, so I'm > not entirely sure how efficiently these can be implemented in ATS. Also, if > we use the same syntax as used in JoCaml, "def" "reply" and "spawn" would > become keywords, while "&" and "or" would acquire a different meaning than > the logical ones they already have. Anyway, let me know what you think of > this suggestion. > > Also, while I'm on the subject of OCaml languages, I had another question: > what would the difficulty be in implementing OCaml-style objects in ATS? > Would they break the type system? > > Regards, > Ian > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ats-lang-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ats-lang-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to ats-lang-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ats-lang-users/7d98649d-f296-408f-92f6-6ab5d3c4ee72%40googlegroups.com.
