Browse thread
Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve.
[
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: | -- (:) |
| From: | Robert C Fischer <robert@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve. |
...and locks and threads are not a viable long-term solution to the problem of concurrency in general. You're future-proofing enough by teaching them functional languages: Erlang and Cilk are closer to the needed future. ~~ Robert. Richard Jones wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:39:29AM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> If you want your students to be future proof then you would do well >> to prepare them for massively parallel computing on CPUs with >> hundreds or even thousands of cores. OCaml it completely >> ill-equipped for this. In contrast, F# provides native >> threads/locks/semaphores/threads/threadpools inherited from .NET as >> well as async programming via extra syntax. Concurrency is beautiful >> in F# and it works today. >> > > F# scales to hundreds or thousands of cores? > > If the OP wants to teach his students about massively parallel > computing, he should avoid the Microsoft lock-in and teach them about > it on Linux clusters. > > Rich. > >