On 2008-05-27, at 11:34, Martin Berger wrote:
Here I disagree. Shared memory concurrency is a specific form
of message passing: Writing to a memory cell is in fact sending
a message to that cell carrying two items, the new value and a
return channel that is used to inform the writer that
On Wednesday 28 May 2008 12:18:37 Damien Doligez wrote:
On 2008-05-27, at 11:34, Martin Berger wrote:
Here I disagree. Shared memory concurrency is a specific form
of message passing: Writing to a memory cell is in fact sending
a message to that cell carrying two items, the new value and a
David Teller wrote:
IIRC, there are already type systems which may prevent deadlocks in
pi-calculus.
This is true but (1) these typing systems are quite complicated
and it will take heroic educational efforts to push such
new typing systems into programming mainstream; (2) these typing
Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
I cannot agree. Just use Ocamlnet! Or other libraries doing it for you.
OK I was speaking carelessly. Of course one can use libraries for
e.g. event-handling.
On the contrary: Shared memory parallelization has the fundamental
disadvantage that you cannot reason about
Ulf Wigner wrote:
Going back to Jon's observation that you cannot exploit
multicore with event-based programming, I'm inclined to
agree, even though I think that message-passing concurrency
is quite suitable for making use of multiple cores (albeit
addressing a wholly different problem from
Am Mittwoch, den 21.05.2008, 09:06 +0100 schrieb Martin Berger:
Here I disagree. Shared memory concurrency is a specific form
of message passing: Writing to a memory cell is in fact sending
a message to that cell carrying two items, the new value and a
return channel that is used to inform
Gerd Stolpmann skrev:
This is simply nonsense. Different concurrency techniques
have different problems.
True.
For example, in event
handling-based concurrency you do not need locks, hence
you cannot run into deadlocks.
Yes you can. We've even had to write design rules to this
effect to
IIRC, there are already type systems which may prevent deadlocks in
pi-calculus. And since pi-calculus is essentially the base for
CML/OCaml's Event/lwt (I'm not 100% sure for lwt), my guess is that it
shouldn't be too hard to get them to work for purely functional threaded
code. The missing step
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
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 the
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 saying
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
