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: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve. |
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 20:27:24 Robert C Fischer wrote: > ...and locks and threads are not a viable long-term solution to the > problem of concurrency in general. Absolutely, that's why we have parallel iter, map, fold etc. > You're future-proofing enough by teaching them functional languages Functional programming is not a panacea. GUI programming is one application area where functional programming, immutability and the parallelizable constructs that I just mentioned are not so beneficial. To solve GUI programming you need different constructs (events, message pumps etc.). Look at some of the example F# programs on our site. This Sudoku solver uses a worker thread to keep the GUI responsive while it solves puzzles: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/sudoku/index.html This ray tracer uses concurrency for incremental update of a responsive GUI: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/dotnet/fsharp/raytracer/index.html This particle simulator runs the simulation thread in parallel with the GUI thread, for real-time visualization of the particle system: http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_for_visualization/demo3.html In the future, I hope OCaml will support concurrency not only to handle parallel constructs but also to handle GUI programming elegantly. If there is one thing that I have been singularly impressed by from .NET, it is GUI programming. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. The F#.NET Journal http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/?e