3 ms·
Apart from *Lisp (https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/thinkingMachines/CM2/starLisp_Reference_Version_5.0_Sep1988.pdf https://www.mirrorse
by DonaldFisk 4y ago
Apart from *Lisp (https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/thinkingMachines/CM2/starLisp_Reference_Version_5.0_Sep1988.pdf https://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/th...), BaLinda Lisp (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0096055196000161 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00960...) and probably quite a few others I'm unaware of.
Lisp as a language is particularly well suited for parallelization, e.g. function arguments can be evaluated in parallel, and functions can be mapped in parallel over lists. This would be MIMD parallelization.
- astrange 4y agoLisp isn't semantically different from other languages, only syntactically - sure things are expressed as `map` instead of a for loop[0], but what's important is the memory layout of your data and whether or not it'd actually be faster to parallelize it, rather than if you can force it to work that way. So as long as the program works the same way it still can't/shouldn't be parallelized. [0] except when Lisp programmers brag about how cool their complicated `loop` macro is