Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote: > >> There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that >> seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff. > > Is it intrinsically massively parallel? If it isn't, it's probably > not going to go places.
I don't think I've ever seen a logical framework which isn't intrinsically massively parallel; ie. it seems to me like sequencing is always an explicit construct, whether it's applicative functors, arrows, monads, linear/uniqueness types, etc. There are cases like Prolog and Pure where the evaluation/search order is defined, but I would still represent sequences of instructions using something like a list (applicative functor) or tree (free monad), freeing up implementations to find the elements in parallel whilst ensuring they're executed in sequence. Maybe I've been using Haskell for too long? ;) Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
