4 ms·
Scala 2.9.0 final
- riobard 15y agoFinally we don't have to change the code to run by interpreter or compiler! Fixed one of the most annoying thing for me.
- petervandijck 15y agoSays our lead programmer: "The new parallel collections are amazing!"
- wcsun 15y agonice to hear that. parallel computing is the reason i choose scala.
- alnayyir 15y ago> parallel computing is the reason i choose scala. What?
- michaelcampbell 15y agoHe said, "parallel computing is the reason [he] chose Scala." That help? ;-)
- alnayyir 15y agoI don't think said person of discussion understand what parallelism is. :\
- kingcub 15y agoThis to me is amazing in it's brevity: //Uses 4 threads (1 to 4).par.foreach(x => /*some long computation*/ } I'd love to see how other languages can do it more tersely with their standard libraries.
- stuntprogrammer 15y agoIn haskell you could write something like this: parMap rseq (\x->/some long computation/) [1..4] using the standard Control.Parallel.Strategies library (use rwhnf instead of rseq unless you are using v3).
- spamizbad 15y agoIn python: from multiprocessing import Pool p = Pool(4) # 4 worker threads p.map(somefunc, someiter) Not sure if this is apples-to-apples. Regardless, I'm always skeptical of the behavior of threaded code, even if it's embarrassingly parallel stuff that is divided among workers.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoUnfortunately the multiprocessing module is a lot less efficient in many cases. Scala doesn't have to copy the entire collection across process boundaries or launch the runtime multiple times. (In this particular rather trivial example it doesn't matter much because an Int range is used). I'm afraid Python is losing out in the parallel world due to the GIL as more CPU cores become the norm.
- andrewcooke 15y agoanyone know when the pace of evolution of scala will drop?
- paulitex 15y agohow could that possibly be known? Hopefully never, if you ask me.
- andrewcooke 15y agofor what it's worth, there's nothing magical (or random) about computer languages - they tend to become more stable over time because they (1) reach some level of internal consistency and (2) become more popular (pressure for backwards consistency). so yes, it probably is possible to answer this question to some degree if you've been watching scala grow. i haven't, which is why i asked.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoI see only library changes in this announcement, so apparently the language itself is rather stable.
- cdmckay 15y agoI really hate that their collection joining method is called `mkString` instead of `join` like it is in C#, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and others.
- michaelcampbell 15y agoI don't hate it as such, but it did make me do a double-take to figure it out. THAT part of it I hate; we, as programmers, often rely far too heavily and broadly on mapping what we see to what it means. Call stuff what it is.