[erlang-questions] Parallel Shootout & a style question

[Gleb Peregud]

It would be nice to include plists (or similar) into stdlib
permanently. It will allow users of Erlang/OTP fine-tune their
applications for SMP systems just by adding "p" (and Malt) where
necessary. I think this issue should be in the hands of the
programmer. Automatic "parallelization" of lists:* will not be
efficient, at least without extensive compile-time (or even run-time)
analysis of the code (if this is possible/feasible at all).

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
<ulf.wiger@REDACTED> wrote:
> Mats Cronqvist skrev:
>> Benjamin Tolputt wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue is that taking the direction you suggest *right now*
>  >> will have the effect of making Erlang slower for most tasks on
>  >> most platforms it is currently deployed on.
>>   Will it? I doubt it would make a realistic application (e.g.
>  >   a phone switch) significantly slower even on single core HW.
>  >   Perhaps you're aware of some measurement that would prove me
>  >   wrong?
>
> The shootout could be a place to experiment with this, if we
> could have one Erlang entry that assumes SMP, and one that
> doesn't, for each benchmark (like we used to have a non-HiPE
> and a HiPE version).
>
> One issue is that there isn't e.g. a plists in the stdlib.
> With permission from the shootout maintainers, we could
> possibly have a patched build, with a lists module (etc.)
> defaulting to parallel solutions (i.e. spawning processes
> where sensible, and gathering results, preserving order
> where necessary.)
>
> Just a thought.
>
> BR,
> Ulf W
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://www.erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>



-- 
Gleb Peregud
http://gleber.pl/

Every minute is to be grasped.
Time waits for nobody.
-- Inscription on a Zen Gong