3 ms·
The Cloud Haskell project and language is likely the only one to get this right, thanks to strictly enforced purity. It's much simpler to understand, absence gl
by AaronFriel 4y ago
The Cloud Haskell project and language is likely the only one to get this right, thanks to strictly enforced purity. It's much simpler to understand, absence global mutable state, whether it's safe and possible to serialize a closure and run it somewhere else. (fork(2) being a closure by another name.)
In almost all other languages there's just no way to know if a closure is holding on to a file descriptor.
Critics may say the Haskell closures could contain `unsafePerformIO`, but as the saying goes: now you have two problems.
- gpderetta 4y agoIsn't fork more of a continuation? /pedantic
- gnufx 4y agoIs Cloud [sigh] Haskell still alive? For comparison, two old distributed lexical scope systems were Cardelli's Obliq and Kelsey's(?) Kali Scheme. From what I remember, not like remote forking, though.
- AaronFriel 4y agoI don't think so, sadly.