Simon Peyton-Jones 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 curious if there are any
| 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 M
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Serguey Zefirov 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? Doesn't make an
2010/8/8 Johnny Morrice :
>> 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. Ghostbuster
> 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 usel
Thank you very much. This is just the answer I needed.
2010/8/8 Alberto G. Corona :
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Alberto G. Corona
> Date: 2010/8/8
> Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Is there any experience using Software
> Transactional Memory in sub
