X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Envelope-From: paubert AT iram DOT es Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:20:21 +0200 From: "Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: "Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? Message-ID: <20150708072021.GB13243@visitor2.iram.es> References: <20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C3778 DOT 4000105 AT neurotica DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559C3778.4000105@neurotica.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-0.2 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: neurotica.com] 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4968] Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:32:56PM -0400, Dave McGuire (mcguire AT neurotica DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On 07/07/2015 03:50 PM, Bob Paddock (graceindustries AT gmail DOT com) [via > geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > "Parallel processing, > > concurrency, threading is an very important point in these days" > > > > To add other obscure languages to this thread (I have heard of all of > > them except Crystal, need to look that one up). > > > > Erlang, that does parallel processing without threads. > > Erlang's designer saw threads as evil and went with message passing. > > Read Joe Armstrong's thesis. > > Never heard of Erlang? It runs a large part of the worlds phone network. > > Erlang looks fantastic, until you get to that > nonintuitive-to-thepoint-of-incomprehensibility syntax! > > > Functional Languages are the long term future rather than procedural > > languages for maintainability and keeping out bugs. > > For the most part I'd have to agree...but they're always going to be > slow, because functional language code (much like object-oriented code) > generally doesn't map all that well to the way processors actually > *work*. (unless you're running an iAPX-432, which I'm assuming you > aren't! ;)) > > Of course one could make "the Lisp argument": "Now that processors are > faster, the performance problems people complained about years ago are > irrelevant!" ;) Yeah, and I find that the netlist generation of my current projects (over 20 seconds) is already slow enough. I have the feeling that scheme is part of the reason. Gabriel