On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Martin Berger wrote:

> >  You may want to try my mpassing library, which now lacks the
> > sequental orthodox unixish message queue, but it would be easy to
> > implement (going to do it soon). I'm using it heavily in a
> > distributed calculations as well as in a massive agent models and
> > as a simple way to program "components", and I'm quite happy I
> > don't ever met in OCaml any of the most common concurrncy bugs
> > I enjoyed with Java and C++.
>
> i wonder why. ocaml essentially offers the same approaches to
> concurrency as do the relevant java or C/C++ libraries. as far
> as i can see, there's nothing in Ocaml's approach to shared
> memory concurrency that would prevent deadlocks or lack of
> mutual exclusion,

 Nothing? Did you forget about the possibility to code without
side effects?

> and there's nothing that prevents the usual
> problems with message passing, like lack of liveness. you do
> have more expressive types in Ocaml, but that is orthogonal to
> concurrency.

 Right. But it's much easier to implement a quite stable
environment for message passing, which will remain stable until
you're following some quite simple rules.


-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners