4 ms·

If Cloud Haskell is going to reference "Erlang-style concurrent and distributed programming" and the Open Telecom Platform (OTP), I think it's warranted on the

by platz 11y ago

If Cloud Haskell is going to reference "Erlang-style concurrent and distributed programming" and the Open Telecom Platform (OTP), I think it's warranted on the site to also see a comparison of what, if any, differences there are between the two in philosophy or differences in the Cloud Haskell's interpretation of those two things. Will some features be prioritized over others?

moomin 11y ago
The most obvious one has to be that it doesn't run on BEAM, and so isn't going to favour the "1000 thread" approaches of true OTP systems.
- njs12345 11y ago
  Haskell threads are pretty lightweight - 1000 would certainly be no problem: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1900165/how-long-does-it-take-to-create-1-million-threads-in-haskell http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1900165/how-long-does-it-...
  - dons 11y ago
    It was fun creating 3M threads on my laptop back in the day. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/a4n7s/stackless_python_outperforms_googles_go/c0ftyao http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/a4n7s/stackless... :) memories!
- stingraycharles 11y ago
  Are you familiar with Haskell's threading model (sparks) and making an assessment based on that, or is it an unbased claim? Haskell has no problems running millions of threads.
  - merijnv 11y ago
    FYI, sparks are different from threads. Haskell has "forkIO" threads which are comparable to Erlang processes/go-routines (actually, they're cheaper than both since haskell allocates less stack for threads). Threads are what you want for concurrent programming (i.e., non-deterministic interleaving of behaviour, which with GHC can be run in either single-threaded or multi-threaded mode). Sparks are for deterministic parallelism, the idea behind sparks is that you create a pool of sparks, each of which represent a small, finite bit of work that can be done in parallel. In general sparks will represent a finite, deterministic amount of work, whereas threads represent a (potentially) infinite amount of non-deterministic work.
    - flippant 11y ago
      For anyone looking for an example, I suggest Chapter 24 of Real World Haskell [1]. The parallel stuff is about halfway down. [1] http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multicore-programming.html http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multico...
      - doublec 11y ago
        Also worth looking at "Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell" http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929 http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929
        michaelochurch 11y ago
        Probably one of the best books on the topics (parallelism, concurrency, distributed programming) overall in addition to being a great Haskell resource.
- moomin 11y ago
  I'm going to stand corrected on this one. Time to learn some more stuff, it seems.

by platz 11y ago

moomin 11y ago

The most obvious one has to be that it doesn't run on BEAM, and so isn't going to favour the "1000 thread" approaches of true OTP systems.

njs12345 11y ago
Haskell threads are pretty lightweight - 1000 would certainly be no problem: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1900165/how-long-does-it-take-to-create-1-million-threads-in-haskell http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1900165/how-long-does-it-...
- dons 11y ago
  It was fun creating 3M threads on my laptop back in the day. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/a4n7s/stackless_python_outperforms_googles_go/c0ftyao http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/a4n7s/stackless... :) memories!
stingraycharles 11y ago
Are you familiar with Haskell's threading model (sparks) and making an assessment based on that, or is it an unbased claim? Haskell has no problems running millions of threads.
- merijnv 11y ago
  FYI, sparks are different from threads. Haskell has "forkIO" threads which are comparable to Erlang processes/go-routines (actually, they're cheaper than both since haskell allocates less stack for threads). Threads are what you want for concurrent programming (i.e., non-deterministic interleaving of behaviour, which with GHC can be run in either single-threaded or multi-threaded mode). Sparks are for deterministic parallelism, the idea behind sparks is that you create a pool of sparks, each of which represent a small, finite bit of work that can be done in parallel. In general sparks will represent a finite, deterministic amount of work, whereas threads represent a (potentially) infinite amount of non-deterministic work.
  - flippant 11y ago
    For anyone looking for an example, I suggest Chapter 24 of Real World Haskell [1]. The parallel stuff is about halfway down. [1] http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multicore-programming.html http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multico...
    - doublec 11y ago
      Also worth looking at "Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell" http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929 http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929
      - michaelochurch 11y ago
        Probably one of the best books on the topics (parallelism, concurrency, distributed programming) overall in addition to being a great Haskell resource.
moomin 11y ago
I'm going to stand corrected on this one. Time to learn some more stuff, it seems.