bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
OCaml has a global interpreter lock which explains its behavior. Russell
didn't know why the Haskell behavior was so bad. He allowed that it was
possible he was misusing it.
You have just the illusion to have learned something about this. Trying to
read too much from this single example is very wrong. A single benchmark,
written by a person not expert in the language, means nearly nothing. You
need at least a suite of good benchmarks, written by people that know the
respective languages. And even then, you have just an idea of the situation.
Fair enough, but in order to dismiss the results I'd need to know *why* the
Haskell version failed so badly, and why such a straightforward attempt at
parallelism is the wrong solution for Haskell.
You shouldn't have to be an expert in a language that is supposedly good at
parallelism in order to get good results from it.
(Russel may or not be an expert, but he is certainly not a novice at FP or
parallelism.)
Basically, I'd welcome an explanatory riposte to Russel's results.
