Would second the motion to reduce redundancy where possible, as it reduces
duplication of effort in testing, docs, etc. where, maybe, we can get GPars
down to a core minimum of functionality, above and beyond what java provides;
essentially as the (b)leading edge of concurrency.
We may reach a point where Java 1.9+ includes everything we could possibly
provide in GPars 2.0+ thus making GPars redundant. Isn't that the best we could
hope for ? To make the JVM realm the premier choice for parallel/concurrent
solutions ? Just a thought.
Thx
Jim
> Message du 03/01/18 19:51
> De : "Russel Winder"
> A : "GPars Users"
> Copie à : "Groovy_Users"
> Objet : GPars 2 Stuff
>
> In GPars 1.X it was possible to do things such as:
>
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallel.reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)}
>
> Without GPars it is possible using Groovy to achieve the exact same
> functionality on JDK8+ with:
>
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallelStream().reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)}.get()
>
> The question is therefore whether to remove the GPars 1.X behaviour
> from GPars 2.X since the functionality is available using nigh on the
> same just using JDK8+ features, or to mock it up using the JDK8+
> features.
>
> Personally I am all for removing the GPars 1.X stuff from GPars 2.X,
> Ockham's Razor etc., so this will be the default action unless people
> get vocal and contribute.
>
> --
> Russel.
> ==========================================
> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
>
>
> [ signature.asc (0.8 Ko) ]
