Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com writes:
In contrast, in a pure functional language there are no reads and
writes, so all the pure part has zero overhead. Only when you do
readTVar' and 'writeTVar' do you pay the overhead; these are a tiny
fraction of all memory accesses.
I'm
| Recently we discussed Haskell and especially types in Russian part of
| LiveJournal and of course we talk about STM.
|
| My opponent gave me that link:
| http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-microsofts-experiments-with-
| software.html
|
| It says that performance with STM in
Recently we discussed Haskell and especially types in Russian part of
LiveJournal and of course we talk about STM.
My opponent gave me that link:
http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-microsofts-experiments-with-software.html
It says that performance with STM in Microsoft Research was
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Date: 2010/8/8
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Is there any experience using Software
Transactional Memory in substantial applications?
To: Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com
This first papers is the first
Thank you very much. This is just the answer I needed.
2010/8/8 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
Date: 2010/8/8
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Is there any experience using Software
Transactional Memory
My opponent gave me that link:
http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-microsofts-experiments-with-software.html
I enjoy the article you linked but I sort of skimmed it because it was a
little boring, however its main point seem to be:
1. Ghostbusters.
2. Artificial intelligence is
2010/8/8 Johnny Morrice sp...@killersmurf.com:
My opponent gave me that link:
http://logicaloptimizer.blogspot.com/2010/06/so-microsofts-experiments-with-software.html
I enjoy the article you linked but I sort of skimmed it because it was a
little boring, however its main point seem to be:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Serguey Zefirov sergu...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that we have to write real apps is a real gem of that conversation.
;)
So this Anders guy bashes functional languages and then says that
programmers should be encouraged to write functional code in OO
languages?
