Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-16 Thread Brendan Eich
On May 16, 2009, at 5:50 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: But you are right that dataflow concurrency is probably not sufficient on its own if we want to make Harmony a practical concurrent language. That is not a goal at this point, and TC39 wouldn't hold the H- release for it. Bear in

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-16 Thread Brendan Eich
On May 16, 2009, at 9:29 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: (Implementation complexity and performance are also important, but personally I consider them to be lower priorities than safety and expressiveness -- especially since safety often has a lower performance cost than many people believe.)

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-15 Thread David-Sarah Hopwood
John Cowan wrote: David-Sarah Hopwood scripsit: Then the functionality of a generator can be implemented using a process/thread that extends a list or queue constructed from dataflow variables. Quite so. How, if at all, do these dataflow variables differ from Prolog variables? Prolog

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-15 Thread Brendan Eich
On May 15, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote: I like the idea of going after the concurrency problem now. I like the idea of doing one language feature instead of two (concurrency and generators). Do you have a solution in mind for this kind of problem? Not to rain on anyone's parade

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-15 Thread Graydon Hoare
On 15/05/09 11:15 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote: Even the simplest generator use cases can't be implemented using threads and dataflow variables in that kind of model. To take a silly example: function iter(arraylike) { for (var i = 0; i arraylike.length; i++) yield

Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-14 Thread David-Sarah Hopwood
[I sent this to es5-discuss, when I intended es-discuss. Sorry for the noise for people subscribed to both.] David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: Jason Orendorff wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Mark S. Miller erig...@google.com wrote: Given both shallow generators and lambda, I don't understand

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-14 Thread David-Sarah Hopwood
Brendan Eich wrote: On May 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: This approach avoids any problems due to a generator being able to interfere with the control flow of its callers. A generator can't interfere with the control flow of its callers. Can you give an example of

Re: Dataflow concurrency instead of generators

2009-05-14 Thread Brendan Eich
On May 14, 2009, at 5:29 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: Brendan Eich wrote: On May 14, 2009, at 4:34 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: This approach avoids any problems due to a generator being able to interfere with the control flow of its callers. A generator can't interfere with the