On Nov 23, 2007 1:29 PM, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > it looks like you mistakenly sent this only to me instead of to the list.
Ugh. > Nobody forces anyone to make it so complicated. But it is complicated. Or are you suggesting that only the precedence rules you happen to like are allowed and the rest thrown out? What happens when people from other parts of math start using the language? Remember those "icky" symbols you were complaining about in Haskell? Those are made to look as close as possible to the actual math symbols. So why is it that you like the really trivial precedence rules but strongly dislike higher math symbols? :) > You *might* be right that functional programming is the best answer to > concurrency, It's not "me", it's a great many people who are actually researching this stuff. > but to be fair you should also mention other solutions > like message-passing concurrency Ala Erlang (functional language that does not allow variable mutation)? > and transactional memory. Ala Haskell (pure functional language)? > The latter > is getting quite a bit of research lately, with Intel also working on > hardware extensions to increase performance and decrease > implementation complexity. You can't claim that functional programming > actually is the *only* or even *best* answer. All aspects are getting a lot of research. Message passing has the distinction of being truly proven in the field by Erlang. I didn't say functional programming was the best or only answer. I said it makes the problem easier, which it does. Most problems in concurrency programming come from dealing with variable mutation. Take that away and those problems go away. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
