Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

Jon Harrop wrote: Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs... I don't believe you have removed any concurrency bugs. I think you just pushed them around a bit. I couldn't agree more. If you 'avoid' concurrency by writing your own 'sequential' event handling code, you have not re

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Martin Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs... >>> >> > I don't believe you have removed any concurrency bugs. I think you just >> pushed them around a bit. >> > > I couldn't agree more. If

[Caml-list] Building a universal binary on OS X?

Hello, Is this (http://alan.petitepomme.net/cwn/2007.09.18.html#1) the recommended way to build a universal binary on OS X? (To summarize: use a PPC version of ocamlopt and use lipo to glue the binaries together.) Thanks, Alan Schmitt PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed mes

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

Am Montag, den 19.05.2008, 12:45 +0100 schrieb Martin Berger: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs... > > > I don't believe you have removed any concurrency bugs. I think you just > > pushed > > them around a bit. > > I couldn't agree more. If you 'a

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 04:09:04PM +0200, Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > This is simply nonsense. Different concurrency techniques have different > problems. For example, in event handling-based concurrency you do not > need locks, hence you cannot run into deadlocks. Mostly. You do however need to pay

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

On Monday 19 May 2008 15:09:04 Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > On the contrary: Shared memory parallelization has the fundamental > disadvantage that you cannot reason about it, I have been reasoning about shared memory parallel programs for many years. > and so the only way of checking the quality of th

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

On Monday 19 May 2008 13:24:26 Berke Durak wrote: > > > > Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs... > > Avoiding threads means to me > ... > Avoiding threads almost eliminates consistency bugs > ... > If you avoid threads > ... There are two problems with what you wrote in this conte

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are two problems with what you wrote in this context: > > 1. You are replying to a thread about shared-memory parallelism with a > discussion of sequential concurrency, which is completely different. > > 2. You keep s

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

> If the answer is STM, please show me some non-trivial application that > uses it, preferably > in an impure language. yes, that would be interesting to see. presumably the example would have to come from Haskell, Clojure, or classically some SQL database? i am under the impression that STM is ha

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

Hi all, > i am under the impression that STM is harder to optimize since > generally you don't know what the transactions collided on. whereas > with a "hot lock" you can see precisely what code uses that lock and > what it locks. I'm not so sure... In fact, my work in the past 4 months has b