skaller wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 16:18 +0000, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I've temporarily decided to leave off learning OCaml (although I still intend 
>>to learn it at some point) and start learning Haskell due to its support for 
>>Software Transactional Memory and lock-free concurrent programming.
> 
> 
> AFAIK STM is not lock free. It simply limits the locking period
> to a bounded time, at the expense of the whole transaction
> taking unbounded time. The final compare/write/retry must
> be atomic and is therefore protected by a mutex under the hood.
> 
> Sebastian Egner said in another post the main advantage
> of STMs: they have a combinator form, that is, they
> can be composed.
> 
> However, despite the lack of safety in a bolt on 
> addition for Ocaml .. the real problem is that STM
> isn't that useful unless you have 
> 
> (a) a lot of processors
> (b) a lot of variables
> 
> so that the risk of contention is low and the cost
> of long exclusions is high. Ocaml fails to satisfy
> property (a) since it doesn't support multi-processing.
> 

You make several claims:

STM is not lock free.
STM is not useful on a small number of processors

With all due respect, these papers refutes these claims:

http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/stm/index.htm

http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/stm/lock-free.htm

(That's right - the premier research on STM is being done by Micro$oft - yuck.)

As for claim 1.  "Lock-free" doesn't mean what you think it does.  Quote from 
first paper, page 11:

"The STM implementation guarantees that one transaction
can force another to abort only when the first one commits.
As a result, the STM implementation is lock-free in the sense
that it guarantees at any time that some running transaction
can successfully commit."

As for claim 2, note the two-processor performance graphs of their tests 
(second paper, "lock-free.htm", pages 14-15): STM blows the hell out of 
conventional lock-based parallel processing.

As for the lot of variables bit, I intend to have a lot of the buggers :-)