the processor industry needs to keep moving forward so we buy their products, regardless of whether we need this speed or not. This "problem" of speed leveling off was not everyone's problem, but its marketed as if it was.
As someone has already pointed out, very few apps need increasing levels of performance and not using a traditional For loop is plainly ridiculous - its simple and GOOD ENOUGH. My argument is the apps that would benefit most are specialist areas anyway. The large proportion of apps built (think desktop apps and inhouse webapps) are not constrained by speed at all anyway. So if 20% of apps need to take advantage of increasing performance by, for example, ditching a traditional for loop, why should the 80% change too and introduce a magnitude of complexity that isn't required? Rakesh On 7 January 2011 20:05, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > This may be relevant: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/wampler-scala > > On 7 Jan 2011 18:06, "Russel Winder" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 17:44 +0000, Kevin Wright wrote: >> [ . . . ] >>> >>> No way is that happening, parallel arrays were the primary driver for >>> closures in java. Until we get closures, all bets are off... >> >> ParallelDoubleArray in extra166y works fine for me with anonymous >> classes. It being Java, it's verbose and ugly, but it works -- no need >> to wait for closures at all. >> >> I agree it would be better to have closures than not have them. >> >> Of course the JVM is not Java, which is why GPars, Scalaz, and Clojure >> already have parallel map so that applications targeting the JVM can >> have all these nice parallelism goodies today -- without having to wait >> for the (potentially mythical :-) Java 7. >> >> -- >> Russel. >> >> ============================================================================= >> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] >> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] >> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
