Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: "John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:03:50 +0100
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:51:11 +0100, Marcus Breiing <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
George Neuner <gneuner2/@comcast.net> writes:
I can envision a distributed solution based on aggressive evaluation
of futures ... starting from any language with call-by-need
semantics.
Programs written for lazy languages will typically serve up lots of
computations that are _never_ used. If you aggressively evaluate them
anyway, doing it in parallel without starving the original threads may
avoid nontermination, but could nevertheless be a horribly inefficient
use of those cores.
Where is Duane Retting.
His first project for Franz was developing a ACL version for Cray (I think,
a supercomputer anyway).
I learnt Amdahl's law from him. (wikipedia)
What else can he teach me?
He should be in this discussion!
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Paul Wallich
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- References:
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: George Neuner
- Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- From: Marcus Breiing
- Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Prev by Date: Re: Replacing Xaml with Lisp on Windows Vista
- Next by Date: Re: How to get the name of a function object? (CMUCL)
- Previous by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Next by thread: Re: Automatic parallelization - was Re: LISP Object Oriented?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|