On Wed, 2018-01-03 at 20:41 +0100, James NORTHROP wrote: > Would second the motion to reduce redundancy where possible, as it > reduces duplication of effort in testing, docs, etc. where, maybe, we > can get GPars down to a core minimum of functionality, above and > beyond what java provides; essentially as the (b)leading edge of > concurrency.
I guess the question is how long to leave "voting" open before declaring the motion passed nem con. > We may reach a point where Java 1.9+ includes everything we could > possibly provide in GPars 2.0+ thus making GPars redundant. Isn't > that the best we could hope for ? To make the JVM realm the premier > choice for parallel/concurrent solutions ? Just a thought. If GPars was redundant (along with Quasar) because all the tools were in the standard library, the JVM world would be a better place. -- Russel. ========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
