3 ms·
At what point did anyone claim it was a new idea? The blog post cites prior art in the very first paragraph. Not in a footnote—in the main text. The top post he
by StefanKarpinski 7y ago
At what point did anyone claim it was a new idea? The blog post cites prior art in the very first paragraph. Not in a footnote—in the main text. The top post here cites several other languages with a similar model. This entire thread reads like a bunch of dudes who are really dying to "well, actually" someone.
- chrisseaton 7y agoI think people were responding to > The only systems which have supported compute-oriented composable parallelism like this are Cilk and TBB Because it isn’t true. Haskell is an example of why it isn’t true.
- StefanKarpinski 7y agoIt's extremely debatable that Haskell is compute-oriented. I know that Haskell people like to talk about doing numerical computing in Haskell, but in reality it does not seem to be a thing. No one has ever used Haskell to implement large scale scientific computations on supercomputers, for example.
- tavert 7y agoNo one? Ever? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpe.3746 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpe.3746
- StefanKarpinski 7y agoYes, Tony, that was hyperbole. Someone, somewhere has always done everything.
- tavert 7y agoYou're really asking for a Dan Luu sequel here.
- DNF2 7y agoThis particular example appears to be an implementation of a 'Computer algebra system', which seems to be a type of symbolic computing rather than numerical computing.