[r6rs-discuss] Implicitly Concurrent Scheme

[David Rush]

2009/11/22 Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide at sacrideo.us>

> This is all for the sake of
> making it easier to concurrently execute procedure calls for the
> implementors. I can't see how it is worth it.


Given that massively parallel computing  is already in reach of the high-end
desktop machine, and that it is soon going to arrive on much lower spec
machines, I think this is a massively valuable avenue of research and could
pay off big (although my bets are on Haskell for this one). I have been
dabbling in it (in a rather unfunded way :) for the last year, actually.

As a standardization issue...well I'm definitely in the "less is more" camp.
But then again, I don't see standards as anything more than semantically
descriptive. They provide a way of concisely specifying what one's
implementation does and does not do. It wouldn't be a deal killer for me in
any dialect, and I could even see the point of including the restriction in
Thing 2. It does seem bad to have Thing1 restricted from ICS.

david rush
-- 
GPG Public key at http://cyber-rush.org/drr/gpg-public-key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20091122/359e5933/attachment.htm