From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105])
	by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p09GpUQl032114
	for <caml-list@sympa-roc.inria.fr>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:51:30 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aq8AAEN2KU1KfVK2kGdsb2JhbACXUoxiCBUBAQIJCQwHEQQgpHCMDQEFiWsBBIVM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,296,1291590000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="84700783"
Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182])
  by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Jan 2011 17:51:25 +0100
Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so19407540wyf.27
        for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:51:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:cc:references
         :in-reply-to:subject:date:organization:message-id:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index
         :content-language;
        bh=aSohnRS8a7mzAOByyr3X8MDCaPIYCrseziwrdOeHG8U=;
        b=xD5TLCtJ6wrOvGDFUuoknD3+BXF+6jkRu20ToHhKWHzKgkNu7X2vG/1PLnlRfI+gKR
         ryH3srLJ+ayuioW0AZPsd3rVtu/imiEPN3bpgmCssHMfF8h4D0J7bdXttl+Oh4INqoHk
         p5kNBqXhtgbOualvDr/WBxrqiOnYTcqWbPDp4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
        h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:organization
         :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
         :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language;
        b=EEN/UUNQzeWwT49g0JC4FC0smBDX0zwBP8OqiuysrMyQ3vQZrk1qLwKLpijCk7PLvM
         peK5cNrH362IxZvBK+QmDUF7wjAgTRin6JZgEyDF5lsf1tYi9BtJwl86ZE4TRhPgJobM
         xOgozUvXLf9PPcubZ6PoCRaJD5qrNpI3UjnWU=
Received: by 10.216.178.132 with SMTP id f4mr997860wem.62.1294589487491;
        Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WinEight (66.94.112.87.dyn.plus.net [87.112.94.66])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o19sm13575499wee.26.2011.01.09.08.11.25
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:11:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Jon Harrop <jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com>
To: "'Brian Hurt'" <bhurt@spnz.org>
Cc: "'Caml List'" <caml-list@inria.fr>
References: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <20110107181157.GA16020852@CIS.FU-Berlin.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101071344150.7793@sergyar>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101071344150.7793@sergyar>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:11:16 -0000
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy
Message-ID: <01d001cbb017$d9369340$8ba3b9c0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcuunCzNNcLQUWMqQYC9afvL3EYtPwBevv+A
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness

Brian Hurt wrote:
> Unless there is some other driver to keep things pure even while being
> strict.  And I would argue there is- concurrency.  Concurrency has a
> lot
> of similarities with laziness, in that the ordering of computations can
> be
> (and often is) undefined, with all the fun that entails.  Haskell is
> really good at multithreaded because it has already "paid the price" of
> dealing with asynchronous computations.

I agree except for "Haskell is really good at multithreaded" because, space
leaks aside, getting Haskell to force lazy computations at the necessary
times to take advantage of multithreading is usually a nightmare.

Cheers,
Jon.