On 8 January 2011 13:24, Rakesh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > Which is all well and good, but I'm fairly sure there were people making similar claims back in the day of the green-screen terminal.
Increasing resolutions, 3d interfaces, Kinect-style gesture recognition, increasing AI and context-aware behaviour, better compression with higher CPU demand, stronger cryptography, data-mining of ever more home photos and videos, etc, etc... The way we interact with computers nowadays is driving the demand for ever-smarter software (not necessarily feature-creep either). This ain't just 20% of the market, it's all of it. The demand for less buggy software is also *always* present, and a functional style just leads to more inherently testable code - so it's basically a Good Thing™ even if concurrency wasn't important to you. I also object to the idea that a list comprehension (for example) is more complex than an imperative loop, let alone a whole order of magnitude more complex! It's simply a different way to thing about it. If anything, using a declarative approach will help to simplify things, "pure" SQL vs cursors is an example of this simplification. > 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]<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]<javaposse%[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]<javaposse%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
