:wave: Hi all, Josh pointed me to this thread. I'm the author of that blog post
he linked to.
Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> The Racket community, and even more so the design of Racket
> concurrency APIs, is very strongly influenced by the academic side of
> Racket. As far as I can tell, structured
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:42 AM Zelphir Kaltstahl <
zelphirkaltst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> … If that works for arbitrary serializable-lambda with only serializable
> parts, I could continue my process pool project.
>
Yes, this would work for any value created by `serial-lambda`.
> The only issue
Hi!
Hmmm, that code example looks simple enough. If that works for arbitrary
serializable-lambda with only serializable parts, I could continue my
process pool project. The only issue would then be, that any user of it
would have to know in advance, that they cannot define their lambdas as
usual,
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:09 PM Zelphir Kaltstahl
wrote:
> I was wrongly under the impression, that serializable-lambda are supposed
> to work out of the box, when sending them over channels, without needing to
> do any further work ("are serialized automatically" instead of "can be
> serialized")
The Racket community, and even more so the design of Racket
concurrency APIs, is very strongly influenced by the academic side of
Racket. As far as I can tell, structured concurrency is fairly close
to what is traditionally called the fork/join model. Concurrency in
Racket is usually structured in
For example, here’s a more functional implementation of Happy Eyeballs in
Clojure, using the author’s “missionary” library (a functional effect and
streaming system):
https://cljdoc.org/d/missionary/missionary/b.11/doc/readme/guides/happy-eyeballs
--
You received this message because you are s
Hi George!
I was wrongly under the impression, that serializable-lambda are
supposed to work out of the box, when sending them over channels,
without needing to do any further work ("are serialized automatically"
instead of "can be serialized"). This is what I would have expected, as
it seems to b
True. However, here comes the big "but": What about capturing the
environment of expressions? For example I might have identifiers in my
S-expressions bound to potentially a lot of data, which must also be
send through the channel. It would be painful (if not impossibly at the
time of writing the c
So far from this thread, it seems the idea of Structured Concurrency hasn’t yet
made it into the Racket world. I’ll be interested to see if it gets adopted in
Racket in the future (or at least better understood) as its adoption grows
elsewhere.
In the meantime, in case it helps illustrate the i
On 10/9/2019 2:34 AM, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote:
I don't think places are a good example for good support of parallelism.
Hoare's "Communicating Sequential Processes" is a seminal work in
Computer Science. We can argue about whether places are - or not - a
good implementation of CSP, but you
Note that it's possible to send S-expressions through a channel and then
eval them on the far end. This would let you do something like this:
(hash 'func 'my-predefined-lambda 'args '(arg1 arg2))
Which calls a predefined function, or:
(hash 'install '(lambda (username) (displayln (~a "Hello, " u
11 matches
Mail list logo
