4 ms·
I’m not certain an overstatement. I’m not convinced either. As you note these ideas are old (they mostly predate C# and .NET by decades). On the other hand, to
by ska 7y ago
I’m not certain an overstatement. I’m not convinced either. As you note these ideas are old (they mostly predate C# and .NET by decades). On the other hand, to a first order approximation, C# has made zero impact in this area. There are a bunch of reasons, but that’s the way it is.
Fair or not, Julia does seem to have the potential to be the first really interesting shift in this area in ages. Doesn’t mean it will get there, but there is interest.
- manigandham 7y agoI was pointing out another very mainstream language (even more than Go and far more than Erlang) that has the same abilities. What do you mean by impact/shift exactly? I guess I'm not understanding what's suddenly going to change now since, as you say, these ideas are old and implemented several times before.
- ska 7y agoWhat I mean is that C# has not been taken up for heavy numeric work in a significant way. Julia, for good or ill, seems to have some potential to be.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoTask concurrency is probably not a great idea for heavy numeric work anyways, right? I’m scratching my head a bit about what the use case for this is in Julia given that there are much better ways of doing parallelism already.
- DNF2 7y agoWhich ways are those?
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoData parallelism mostly.
- DNF2 7y agoWe're not talking about concurrency, but actual parallelism. Anyway, if by data parallelism you mean simd, then that is already available and widely used in Julia. Multithreading comes on top of that.