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 (12:20) |
From: | Alex Baretta <alex@b...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] ocaml and concurrency |
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