Re: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness

[Eray Ozkural <examachine@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Jon Harrop <
jonathandeanharrop@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I think the lesson to learn there is that there is no simple evaluation
strategy
that is good for all architectures.

Best,

-- 
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1640 bytes --]