4 ms·
I'm surprised that you chose to use actors to parallelize your code. I always thought they were more valuable for concurrency. Back before Scala 2.8 came out wi
by sreque 15y ago
I'm surprised that you chose to use actors to parallelize your code. I always thought they were more valuable for concurrency. Back before Scala 2.8 came out with parallel collections, when I need parallelism I wrote my own pmap-like functions. It was really easy, probably easier than learning the whole concept of actors, let alone an implementation of them, and I got the performance speedup I was looking for.
It sounds to me like you got a large code reduction because in Scala you used a heavyweight concurrency solution to a lightweight parallelism problem.
- seancorfield 15y agoI just went back and looked at the code overhead of using actors over what it might look like with 2.9's parallel collections and the difference would be about 25-30 lines so I don't think that counts as a potentially "large code reduction". Wrapping three bits of code in actors doesn't add much ceremony (which is in fact a great example of how concise Scala can be when adding concurrency!). (And parallel collections came in 2.9, not 2.8 - we'd already migrated, painfully, from 2.7 to 2.8)