Browse thread
[Caml-list] ocaml killer
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-01-29 (15:42) |
From: | Vitaly Lugovsky <vsl@o...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and concurrency |
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