AW: Re: [clean-list] Re:Clean Wish List: My old major wish...

[Dr.Neurosurgus]

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--=_NextPart_Caramail_0045221034777274_ID
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi CleanWorld,

> Functional programming developments once concentrated also on devising totally 
> new hardware configurations. That stopped when important breakthroughs took 
> place in compiler design, was it in the 1980's? 

right.

> They opened up the perspective of acceptable preformance for 
> functional language programs on ordinary hardware. 

acceptable for what? I was quite happy when Clean have been 
supplied with web enabling utils, but... something telling me that it 
is not the core application field for the Clean. You know mostly 
with the same success someone could provide web-enabling 
utilities for nVidia video cards, but it doesn't mean that web 
performance is a key property of video cards.

Returning to your statement, it was quite OK to have *any* PC 
when you at development phase of your language. But it is not OK 
when you think of application already and try to *compete* other 
languages. Concerning competing, Clean is a good language for 
parallelized computations, and I see no (direct) performance 
fighting with tools and/or languages designed for web.


> What we now need is practical solutions, so they should be based 
> on available and afordable hardware. 

I'd postpone discussing hardware issue up to the moment when
we could se (invisible) forking implemented in Clean. Before this 
there's no much sense discussing hardware.

> I think the Clean team are doing a good job. 

I'd say excellent.

> When the need for implicit parallellism becomes ever more clear, 
> and one bright researcher finds a way to implement it, we'll get it. 

What's the problem? 

1. Just deliver *every* graph reduction step to a new CPU and/or thread 
 and/or process.

2. Then you'll see vastly degrading of your performance on classical machines, 
 than you could ask for new hardware

3. And meanwhile you could make some optimizers which could enable
 delivering not every graph reduction step to another CPU but only needed
 (like thos compile time optimizers, trying to use registers instead of 
 memory as much as possibly)

> Until then, we'll dream on...

Don't dream guys, do something about it!
:)

You have more then others.

And to Fabien Todescato:

your saying could be like a slogan from another world: 

"Every day our autos are quicker and quicker, but those so 
called aircrafts still slow and even crashing! So let's deny them!"

Don't you think it is not that good argumentation especially if you 
have have key secrets for creating aircrafts? 

What could you tell me if someone push you into a world where
PCs have 1 billion processors and only one or two bytes 
memory? "New Dual Byte 2GProc Server for your application!"
I do not think this situation is OK.

P.S. Sorry for too much analogies, for those who is allergic to it.

best regards,
Valery A.Khamenya
Bioinformatics Department
BioVisioN AG, Hannover

______________________________________________________
Internetzugang zum cleveren Spartarif mit Lycos-Comundo!
Highspeed f=FCr nur 0,0143 Euro/Min. http://www.lycos.de/L/M/T/


--=_NextPart_Caramail_0045221034777274_ID--