Community Page
- phildawes.net/blog/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Hi, Do you feel that your agility in Factor has improved since this post? Roger
- Thanks for the pointer - I've cleaned up the spam and regrettably added some moderation
- I'm loving the comments thread for this post. Can't decide whether to get my upholstery cleaned or do something about my fast food obesity.
- Cool - thanks Eric
- I pasted some code that does the moving sum in factor. http://paste.factorcode.org/paste?id=569#282
Jump to original thread »
I’m on a sleepy late train home from London to Birmingham (trying to avoid the snow and inevitable rail problems tomorrow). This woke me up:
Patrick Logan says STM “…would be the most tragic turn imaginable for programming in the 21st century.”%3 ... Continue reading »
Patrick Logan says STM “…would be the most tragic turn imaginable for programming in the 21st century.”%3 ... Continue reading »
2 years ago
Probably a good thing that I don't write code anymore :-)
2 years ago
I don't see much from Logan in terms of real arguments, except the repeated assertion that we shouldn't share state. Of course minimising shared state is laudable, but you can never squeeze all of the air out of the balloon. If we accept that sharing state, is necessary albeit rare, then STM is exactly what we need to make it tractable.
The interesting thing for me about this STM-vs-message-passing debate is that we can essentially build Erlang in Haskell (i.e. implement message passing on top of STM) but we can't build Haskell in Erlang (i.e. STM on top of message passing).