Granted, although I haven't played with Haskell+STM: the point I was 
trying to make was that we need to be denoting parallelism instead of 
implementing it.  To that end, functional languages are better for that 
kind of work (due to their disdain of side effects, if nothing else).

Robert Fischer
IT Firefighter
Smokejumper Consulting



Brian Hurt wrote:
> Robert C Fischer wrote:
>
>> ...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.
>>
> I think you mean "Haskell+STM" instead of Cilk.  Cilk isn't a 
> particularly functional language (being effectively C plus a little bit).
>
> Brian
>
>