3 ms·

I think part of Lisp's success was that academics liked it, so when they did clever stuff, it was related to Lisp. Today, it seems that academics like Haskell (

by 11ren 18y ago

I think part of Lisp's success was that academics liked it, so when they did clever stuff, it was related to Lisp. Today, it seems that academics like Haskell (is it true?), and so when they think of clever stuff, it will be related to Haskell. The "Java of FP" could be C# or F# (although Microsoft isn't willing to go multi-platform, so that might stop it becoming "successful", by many definitions). But honestly, I don't think there is a powerful enough vector available to carry FP. C had Unix. Java had the net. A novel way to think about the next "Java of FP" is to think of what vector could matter, and then what FP language is well-placed to be carried by it. Mobile phones are all I can think of at the moment, but no FP has come of it; the netbooks (which are becoming phones) are plain ol' PCs; and the iPhone runs Objective-C (doesn't it?). What's the next IT revolution? Actually, time_management is right: the next IT revolution is clearly multi-core. EDIT: I keep hearing about Intel's CUDA for multicore on GPU's, but it's pretty much the anti-FP, being "recursion free" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#Limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA#Limitations

ionfish 18y ago
There's a project called GpuGen intended to allow the compilation of Haskell code to CUDA. http://www.galois.com/blog/2008/08/29/gpugen-bringing-the-power-of-gpus-into-the-haskell-world/ http://www.galois.com/blog/2008/08/29/gpugen-bringing-the-po... There's also something similar called Obsidian: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3016 http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3016
- ionfish 18y ago
  And if you'd prefer to read the original papers, rather than presentation slides... http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/gpugen.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/gpugen.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~joels/writing/dccpaper_obsidian.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~joels/writing/dccpaper_obsidian....
11ren 18y ago
There's a counter-argument to multi-cores being the next IT revolution: although they seem to be the way to faster performance, faster performance isn't needed. Data point one: the rise of the netbook. They have slower, single-core processors, and are fast enough for most of the mainstream stuff people want to do: web, email, word-processing. Netbooks are getting faster (and this is needed for some webapps e.g. that musical score webapp is a little sluggish on my eee PC). But what is more important in a netbook is weight and battery life - that is what is needed. Performance isn't needed. Data point two: even in video games, the wii console is the most successful of the present batch. It is unusually low powered even for single-core (and in coincidence, one of its competitors, the PS3, is multi-core). Performance isn't needed. Data point three (an exception): some applications do need performance (weather simulation; google server farms), but these are already multi-core, and have been for a long time (the core used to be in separate computers, but the app was multi-core). I'm arguing that most of the mainstream market can't absorb faster performance (and the high-performance market has already solved the problem). Ripe for Disruption?: It's common for whole industries to overshoot what is needed, in terms of the particular metric they have worked at improving for years. Their corporate organization, product development and marketing are based on improving that aspect, and selling that aspect. When the basis of competition shifts, you get a new set of leaders, because the old ones can't adapt.

by 11ren 18y ago

ionfish 18y ago

There's a project called GpuGen intended to allow the compilation of Haskell code to CUDA. http://www.galois.com/blog/2008/08/29/gpugen-bringing-the-power-of-gpus-into-the-haskell-world/ http://www.galois.com/blog/2008/08/29/gpugen-bringing-the-po... There's also something similar called Obsidian: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3016 http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3016

ionfish 18y ago
And if you'd prefer to read the original papers, rather than presentation slides... http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/gpugen.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/gpugen.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~joels/writing/dccpaper_obsidian.pdf http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~joels/writing/dccpaper_obsidian....

11ren 18y ago

There's a counter-argument to multi-cores being the next IT revolution: although they seem to be the way to faster performance, faster performance isn't needed. Data point one: the rise of the netbook. They have slower, single-core processors, and are fast enough for most of the mainstream stuff people want to do: web, email, word-processing. Netbooks are getting faster (and this is needed for some webapps e.g. that musical score webapp is a little sluggish on my eee PC). But what is more important in a netbook is weight and battery life - that is what is needed. Performance isn't needed. Data point two: even in video games, the wii console is the most successful of the present batch. It is unusually low powered even for single-core (and in coincidence, one of its competitors, the PS3, is multi-core). Performance isn't needed. Data point three (an exception): some applications do need performance (weather simulation; google server farms), but these are already multi-core, and have been for a long time (the core used to be in separate computers, but the app was multi-core). I'm arguing that most of the mainstream market can't absorb faster performance (and the high-performance market has already solved the problem). Ripe for Disruption?: It's common for whole industries to overshoot what is needed, in terms of the particular metric they have worked at improving for years. Their corporate organization, product development and marketing are based on improving that aspect, and selling that aspect. When the basis of competition shifts, you get a new set of leaders, because the old ones can't adapt.