English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Teaching bottomline, part 3: what should improve.
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-05-23 (19:27)
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.