3 ms·

It's not just new languages, it's new algorithms, most problems aren't trivially parallel. The problems that are trivially parallel are well suited to be solve

• dons 15y ago
  "Functional/reactive" has a very specific meaning, unrelated to parallelism.
  • fleitz 15y ago
    I'm aware of the differences but writing your code in a functional / reactive style makes parallelism much easier. List.map can be safely parallelized in a functional language where as it cannot in an imperative language. That's what I'm getting at. In a functional language (lets say haskell) you could switch the implementation of map to a parallel one and the community would probably accept it because there are a few edge cases involving doing something with a monad where it would break but 99% of code would work. If you did the same thing in Java/C/C++/C#/Python/Ruby it would break massive amounts of code. In theory they have absolutely nothing to do with each other, but in practice they have a lot to do with each other.
    • njs12345 15y ago
      The edge cases would involve unsafePerformIO - you can't use map with functions in a monad, that's what you have mapM for :)