Martin Berger wrote:

> 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, 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.
> 
> martin

You are right. No tool can save you from deadlocks or races in a 
concurrent environment. The properties of being free from deadlocks and 
free from races depend on the characteristics of the distributed 
algorithm implemented by the program, not by the 
multithreading/multiprocessing abstraction facilities in the language. 
Yet, it is immensely better to to write concurrent software in a purely 
functional style with a garbage collected language, while taking 
advantage of a functional message passing library. Ifk you really have 
to dig your own grave, get yourself a Caterpillar.

Alex

-------------------
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