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
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?