[Haskell-cafe] Re: DDC compiler and effects; better than Haskell?
John A. De Goes
john at n-brain.net
Sun Aug 16 09:33:50 EDT 2009
I forgot about links. In that case, consider:
Attacking irrelevant details in an argument is often called a
"strawman attack". Such attacks are pointless because they do not
address the real substance of the issue. My example is easily modified
to avoid the issues you raise.
Consider the fact that many file-based operations _can and are
parallelized manually by developers_. The challenge for next
generation language and effect system designers is to figure out _how_
such operations can be automatically parallelized, given sufficient
constraints, high-level constructs, and a powerful effect system.
Saying, "I don't know exactly how it will look," is quite a bit
different from saying "It can't be done." I claim the former.
John A. De Goes
The Evolution of Collaboration
http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
On Aug 16, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Artem V. Andreev wrote:
> "John A. De Goes" <john at n-brain.net> writes:
>> On Aug 15, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Jason Dusek wrote:
>>> 2009/08/14 John A. De Goes <john at n-brain.net>:
>>>> Hmmm, my point (perhaps I wasn't clear), is that different
>>>> effects have different commutability properties. In the case
>>>> of a file system, you can commute two sequential reads from
>>>> two different files.
>>> I think this is a bad example -- it's not something that's
>>> safe in general and discredits your idea. How would the
>>> compiler even know that two files are not actually the same
>> I don't think the file system is the best example. However, I do
>> think it's a reasonable one.
>> Let's say the type of the function getFilesInDir is annotated in
>> such a way as to tell the effect
>> system that every file in the returned array is unique. Further,
>> let's say the type of the
>> function makeNewTempFile is annotated in such a way as to tell the
>> effect system that the
>> function will succeed in creating a new temp file with a name
>> unique from any other existing
> Sorry, but this example is ridiculuous. While file *names* in this
> case might be reasonably assumed
> to be unique, the *files* themselves may not. Any modern filesystem
> does support file aliasing,
> and usually several forms thereof. And what does makeNewTempFile
> function do? Does it create a new
> file like POSIX mktemp() and return its name, or does it rather
> behave as POSIX mkstemp()?
> The first case is a well known security hole, and the second case
> does not, as it seems to me, fit
> well into the rest of your reasoning.
> However, let's consider further file system tree traversal. In some
> cases you might not care, whether
> some of the directories you descend into are actually the same
> directory, so your proposed optimization
> would be `safe'. However, in other cases sequential traversal would
> work, while a parallelized version
> would not, unless special additional measures are taken. E.g.
> consider a case of a build system. It
> traverses a source tree, finds sources files and if corresponding
> object files are non-existent or
> outdated, does something to regenerate them. Now if you have a
> directory that's actually a link to
> another directory, and you do sequential traversal, everything is
> fine: you descend into the directory
> the first time, build everything there and when you descend into it
> the second time, there's just nothing
> to do. If you do parallel traversal, you may well end up in the
> situation where two threads check
> simultaneously for an object file, discover it's outdated and run
> two build processes simultaneously,
> with the most likely effect of corrupted object file.
>> Then if you write a recursive function that loops through all files
>> in a directory, and for each
>> file, it parses and compiles the file into a new temp file, then a
>> sufficiently sophisticated
>> compiler should be able to safely transform the recursion into
>> parallel parsing and compilation
>> -- in a way that's provably correct, assuming the original program
>> was correct.
>> The promise of a language with a purely functional part and a
>> powerful effect system for
>> everything else is very great. And very important in the massively
>> concurrent world we are
>>> Well, yes -- which sounds like, there are no guarantees
>>> in general. Something that works half the time leaves you with
>>> two responsibilities -- the old responsibility of the work you
>>> did when you didn't have it and the new responsibility of
>>> knowing when it applies and when it doesn't.
>> In the other thread, I brought up the example of buffering reads.
>> Library authors make the
>> decision to buffer for one reason: because if some other program
>> is messing with the data, you're
>> screwed no matter what.
>> And yeah, "they might be screwing with the data in just the way
>> you need it to be screwed with,"
>> (Sebastian), in which case my advice is use C and hope for the
>> best. :-)
>> John A. De Goes
>> N-Brain, Inc.
>> The Evolution of Collaboration
>> http://www.n-brain.net | 877-376-2724 x 101
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> S. Y. A(R). A.
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell-Cafe