Kevin, yet again you ever so subtly answer back by basically saying that I am a thicko, an enemy of progress and if I had my way, we would be back in the dark ages burning witches.
Its why I stopped participating in these forums much. Not much room for discussion of the facts. I put forward a theory that most applications built by developers do not require ever-increasing performance and as a consequence, ditching the for loop seemed silly. R On 8 January 2011 13:43, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> >> 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. >> > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > gtalk / msn : [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. > -- 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.
