[r6rs-discuss] Implicit parallel Scheme (was Re: Parallel-Scheme [was: Thoughts on Scheme's Future])

[John Cowan]

Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:

> Sometimes, you need threads; the case that comes to mind is a server
> that handles lots of connections initiated by clients we have no
> control over. If the protocol has any connection state, it's nice to
> model that with flow control by having a thread per connection. 

It's even nicer to model it with a process per connection, or a thread
that's arranged to be shared-nothing (which is what processes really
are; threads that share nothing except by arrangement in advance).
If processes aren't fast enough, kick the kernel people until they are.
(Linux is getting awfully good at fast context-switching FWIU.)

> Of course, many high performance servers these days do magic with few
> threads and non-blocking I/O to multiplex stuff; at a terrible cost in
> ease of understanding their code, which has to be recast as a state
> machine so the flow of control can be abstracted out. 

I agree.  Inverted control is disgusting, and there's no reason to
use it, *especially* in Scheme where the compiler is supposed to do
the work for you!

> Erlang FTW.

+1

-- 
But that, he realized, was a foolish            John Cowan
thought; as no one knew better than he          cowan at ccil.org
that the Wall had no other side.                http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness"