Robert Dockins wrote: > All we have to do is be ready for it when it arrives. > When people see that, using Haskell, they can write programs using 1)
> fewer man-hours with 2) fewer bugs which 3) scale effortlessly to > highly parallel hardware to beat the pants off C/C++/Java/what-have- > you, they'll be beating down the doors to get it. > I'd love to see Haskell on highly concurrent hardware becoming more > of a reality: Haskell on the Cell is a great idea; I'd love to see > Haskell over MPI (using YHC bytecode maybe?); Haskell-over-GPU (you > know you like it!); and of course, SMP Haskell is also interesting. > One of the things I love about Haskell is that the language > definition transcends execution strategy/environment. I think your enthusiasm outstrips reality a bit here. STM appear to provide a much improved model for concurrent programming on shared memory architectures (I say "appears" here because I've read the papers but haven't used it). Whilst this applies directly to the limited scalability of new multi-core desktop machines, I don't think it's going to provide huge benefits to the more scalable architectures based upon message passing (eg MPI and Cell). I'd be pleased to be corrected, but I'm not aware of any mainstream haskell libs/extensions that make implementing message passing concurrent systems fundamentally easier than in other languages. Tim _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell