3 ms·

Your response is more misleading than the article: > but this kind of parallelization are easy to do in any languages. Not if you have a GIL. Even then the la

Your response is more misleading than the article: > but this kind of parallelization are easy to do in any languages. Not if you have a GIL. Even then the languages without that limitation do not make what pmap does ... easy. > [STM] have benefits that largely remain to be proven. I always find this statement to be misleading. STM has been shown to greatly benefit the correctness of concurrent programs, you're managing that less by hand. The only thing that seems to be unproven is whether the performance tradeoff is worth it. It'd be nice to see some numbers that show what you lose in X% of the performance vs removing X% the amount of locking code. > [Java interop] And frankly it can get ugly. It's good to have it, but ... Yet far less tedious and simpler than writing a C module, or a C library binding. If you're comparing against that, Clojure's Java interop story is damn heavenly. > In short, this is just a rehashing of what you usually hear about clojure, but with no insight of real use ... Perhaps for you and I. But there are a lot of people in this big wide world. Uncle Bob taps into a community that's quite different from the language enthusiast crowd of HN. Your viewpoint more myopic than the OP. Yet you get upvotes. Oh well.

_delirium 16y ago
>> but this kind of parallelization are easy to do in any languages. > Not if you have a GIL. Even then the languages without that limitation do not make what pmap does ... easy. Sure, but it is easy in a lot of not-very-functional languages. The kind of parallelization that you can do by simply replacing a map with a pmap can usually be done in one line of OpenMP in C, C++, or Fortran, telling it to run the loop iterations in parallel.
Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
>Your response is more misleading than the article Well maybe, but i feel like you are purposedly misunderstanding me. This was not a rant about clojure, but about the article, yet you take my quotes out of their original context and make it seem like so. > Not if you have a GIL. Ok, fair point. But that's not the question. The OP was claiming functionnal programming made parallelization a breeze, which is a very stereotypical position you hear a lot lately. Well, the kind of parallelization which is made a breeze by FP is also the kind that is very easy, not in any language, but in any language claiming to have parallelization features, cf. delirium's answer. > Yet far less tedious and simpler than writing a C module, or a C library binding Okay, i was merely reacting to the claim that "anything you can do in java you can do in clojure". Which, for taking your comparison, would be like saying "anything you can do in C you can do in Python". Okay not exactly like that, but the fact remains. The impression the OP gives in this regard is that , since there is this java interop, the library problem is solved. Well no, it is not, and very far from it. If this kind of bullshit marketing talk went away, you'd see less newbies complaining in #clojure or on the group about how it's hard to do X. > Uncle Bob taps into a community that's quite different from the language enthusiast crowd of HN. But i'm commenting on HN, not on his blog. This is for a reason. I'm judging the interrest of the article relatively to the crowd here. On a side note, i did not even notice it was Uncle Bob. If i had, my rant would have been even worse, or i would not had written it maybe. It does indeed exhibit the same emptyness i feel from every of his articles. Maybe it's a good article, and i'm overly critical, and i should probably try and write my own article about why i love clojure, to realize it's not necessarily that easy. But i have a very bad reaction to marketing talk.

_delirium 16y ago

>> but this kind of parallelization are easy to do in any languages. > Not if you have a GIL. Even then the languages without that limitation do not make what pmap does ... easy. Sure, but it is easy in a lot of not-very-functional languages. The kind of parallelization that you can do by simply replacing a map with a pmap can usually be done in one line of OpenMP in C, C++, or Fortran, telling it to run the loop iterations in parallel.

Raphael_Amiard 16y ago

>Your response is more misleading than the article Well maybe, but i feel like you are purposedly misunderstanding me. This was not a rant about clojure, but about the article, yet you take my quotes out of their original context and make it seem like so. > Not if you have a GIL. Ok, fair point. But that's not the question. The OP was claiming functionnal programming made parallelization a breeze, which is a very stereotypical position you hear a lot lately. Well, the kind of parallelization which is made a breeze by FP is also the kind that is very easy, not in any language, but in any language claiming to have parallelization features, cf. delirium's answer. > Yet far less tedious and simpler than writing a C module, or a C library binding Okay, i was merely reacting to the claim that "anything you can do in java you can do in clojure". Which, for taking your comparison, would be like saying "anything you can do in C you can do in Python". Okay not exactly like that, but the fact remains. The impression the OP gives in this regard is that , since there is this java interop, the library problem is solved. Well no, it is not, and very far from it. If this kind of bullshit marketing talk went away, you'd see less newbies complaining in #clojure or on the group about how it's hard to do X. > Uncle Bob taps into a community that's quite different from the language enthusiast crowd of HN. But i'm commenting on HN, not on his blog. This is for a reason. I'm judging the interrest of the article relatively to the crowd here. On a side note, i did not even notice it was Uncle Bob. If i had, my rant would have been even worse, or i would not had written it maybe. It does indeed exhibit the same emptyness i feel from every of his articles. Maybe it's a good article, and i'm overly critical, and i should probably try and write my own article about why i love clojure, to realize it's not necessarily that easy. But i have a very bad reaction to marketing talk.