[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ine.net> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<a05200f00b9f9db470de4@[63.120.19.221]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<a05200f01b9fd88f0263d@[63.120.19.221]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<a05200f00b9fdb26fa549@[63.120.19.221]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.edu.au> <a05200f00b9fdfe25395d@[63.120.19.221]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10)
Date: 21 Nov 2002 15:22:57 +1300
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 06:57, Mark Biggar wrote:
> Martin D Kealey wrote:
> > I want Perl to run 128 times faster on a 128 CPU machine... now I know
> > that's not entirely realistic, but it should be able to run at least say
> > 60 times faster.
>
> Amdahl's law applies here: "no amount of paralellism will speed up
> an inheirently sequential algorithm"
True in the abstract, but in practice in most languages an awful lot of
algorithms that I<aren't> inherently sequential get serialized by the
compiler because it can't tell it's safe to do otherwise.
This is where pure-functional or applicative languages can have a big
performance win - because the compile almost alway I<can> see that
things are safe to parallelize.
-Martin
