No - I wish I knew somewhere this is clearly described. What I think is
that in functional languages with non-mutable data we can avoid locking.
Non-mutable data simplifies parallelization since the objects we work on
never change. It enables massive parallelization without any locking
schemes, I think. I hope someone in the forum can describe this better
or link to some nice description. /Erling
On 2016-10-01 23:28, Henry Rich wrote:
It sounds like you are conflating 'mutex' and 'mutable'.
Henry Rich
On 10/1/2016 4:15 PM, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
I think non-mutable data is part of the solution to the locking
problems in object-oriented languages. It seems there must be a limit
after which even J has to use more than one thread? Is there a plan
for how to handle that? Or are we using several threads already? /Erling
On 2016-10-01 21:56, Erling Hellenäs wrote:
On 2016-10-01 15:40, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming wrote:
Forcing immutable only arrays is not an option for this language if
it is to remain compatible with itself
Someone wants to give a more specific explanation to this? What in
the language prevents immutable only arrays?
/Erling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
