brogoff wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Alex Baretta wrote:
> 
>>brogoff wrote:
> 
> Some problems are just way easier to solve with imperative programming
> though. Have you ever taken a look at purely functional catenable deques?
> If you don't need persistence (if your deques are used in a single threaded
> manner that is) would you use those instead of the obvious doubly linked
> list implementation? That's not an abstract question either, catenable deques
> come up quite naturally when implementing some 2D computational geometry
> algorithms.I took a look at the latest algorithm by Kaplan and Tarjan and
> quickly realized that it was hugely complicated if persistence is not needed.
s list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> 

I didn't understand the connection between multithreading and
persistence, but it's probably too late and I've been working far too
much to follow you entirely. Let me just give you a couple eurocents of
industrial experience: side-effects are utterly bad. My Xcaml
application server was designed two years ago with one major flaw: one
global state variable. I'm still fighting with the execution engine to
take it away, but that won't happen before a major rewrite. I won't by
imperative programming for anything at all. And, yes, in my company the
mandated standard for deques is batched queues à la Okasaki.

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