3 ms·
Hmm, so you would not say that Clojure's or Go's approaches are worth it in terms of programming ease? The plots you point to looks at least seems worrying: Pyt
by fnl 16y ago
Hmm, so you would not say that Clojure's or Go's approaches are worth it in terms of programming ease? The plots you point to looks at least seems worrying: Python is smacked on the concise 0-axis, C on speed. Clojure at least makes no especially good grounds on those plot, as I already expected. However, I was hoping people would say it is so much easier writing a parallel implementation of the code I am using that I switched to Clojure/consider using Go/whatever.
- Detrus 16y agoThe charts are for general language use, not specifically concurrency. Go and Clojure are better than locks and mutexes of C, but there were similar ideas in Scala and other languages along the way and the newcomer improvements don't land far from those. So Go, Clojure, F#, Scala, Python could proabably be lumped into the same ease of implementation category as far as concurrency. They'll all make a mess if you have complex control flow. This http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1824683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1824683 (which you've already seen) or http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/F_Sharp_Programming/Async_Workflows http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/F_Sharp_Programming/Async_Workf... is what I call a mess, but it's as clean as it gets for now. I think the real test is whether people start using concurrency as the norm and not as a separate use case (since it's annoying to write). I don't think these languages will have that effect.