I don't think that scalar languages vs. array languages is the issue, here.
Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Scalar languages have a need for non-mutable arrays. Array languages do > not. As Bill said, all arrays in J are non-mutable. But names are not. As I > understand it, the in-place operations are allowed only for actions that > cannot fail part-way through leaving an array half-modified. > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 5:13 AM, bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think other forum members should have answer your question, >> All J array are non-mutable. eg, an array 0 1 2 cannot becomes >> 0 1 2 3 or 0 1. But value assigned to a name can change. >> If you meant a name can only be assigned a value once, it was >> called "given name" in ancient J, and was dropped long time ago. >> I might not recall correctly, that was 2 or 3 decades ago. >> >> In-place operation is an implementation detail not a language >> feature. >> >> Вс, 02 окт 2016, Erling Hellenäs написал(а): >> > 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 >> >> -- >> regards, >> ==================================================== >> GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24 >> gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3 >> gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --armor --export 4434BAB3 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
