User loginNavigation |
Parallel skeleton libs review?I'm under the (possibly simply clueless) impression that skeleton libraries for parallelism e.g. OCamlP3l are a good way to be highly safe and avoid weird parallelism bugs in your system - if I understand it, the point being that the skeleton library has pre-tested the skeletons to make sure they work (modulo the user really doing something clueless with them). But I don't get the impression this approach has taken off. Is this due to the inflexibility which recent OCamlP3l's claim to have at least somewhat addressed (perhaps also SuperPAS)? Or is there some more basic problem with the whole idea? Is it wrong, or outdated, or ...? I'd very much like to hear anybody's experiences with such things. Thank you. (P.S. and how they feel compared to e.g. the Actors approach, or the GdH approach, or others.) (P.P.S. and how different takes on skeletons feel comparatively e.g. Java Lithum, DataRush, or any other such thing.) By raould at 2008-01-12 02:32 | LtU Forum | previous forum topic | next forum topic | other blogs | 4672 reads
|
Browse archives
Active forum topics |
Recent comments
32 weeks 6 days ago
33 weeks 3 hours ago
33 weeks 3 hours ago
1 year 3 weeks ago
1 year 7 weeks ago
1 year 8 weeks ago
1 year 8 weeks ago
1 year 11 weeks ago
1 year 16 weeks ago
1 year 16 weeks ago