| |||||||||||||
GCC and static analysisGCC and static analysisPosted Apr 22, 2012 16:58 UTC (Sun) by rwst (guest, #84121)In reply to: GCC and static analysis by khim Parent article: GCC and static analysis
Combinatorial, heh, I know the beginner's experience with Haskell. Headers, globals/locals, data structures ok but I never knew when to put $ or (...). Finally, monads are a black art, but presumably the most powerful construct. Though I didn't stay in that language, I would come back and try again should I need to.
Is it true what someone said: to parallelize a Haskell program needs the mere setting of a switch?
(Log in to post comments)
GCC and static analysis Posted Apr 22, 2012 17:29 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Is it true what someone said: to parallelize a Haskell program needs the mere setting of a switch? This is exaggeration but with a kernel of truth. Programs in functional languages are usually easily parallelizable by a compiler if the underlying algorithm is parallelizable. But it is possible to write even well-parallelizable algorithm in such a way as to make it impossible. This is an art, though - and an ugly one. Trivial proof-of-concept: implement Turing Machine on top of Haskell, implement your algorithm on top of said machine… mission accomplished.
|
|||||||||||||