Re: [Readable-discuss] New Release?

[Jörg F. W. <Joe...@so...>]

Am 13.02.2014 14:18, schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
> On 2/13/14, "Jörg F. Wittenberger" <Joe...@so...> wrote:
>> Am 13.02.2014 09:50, schrieb Alan Manuel Gloria:
>>> I'm kinda sorta vaguely planning on a Scheme implementation which has
>>> STM at its core (basically, all non-transactional mutations are
>>> implicitly considered to be inside tiny transactions containing only
>>> that mutation).
>> Have you seen http://ball.askemos.org ?
> Err..... not really, and it's a bit more large-scale than what I had in mind.

Yes, it certainly is.  Nevertheless the idea is, that the 
fault-tolerant, replicated state is some kind of STM.

>
>> Your idea reminds me so much to our reasoning.  Just because our
>> transactional memory was known to be horribly slow, we decided to have
>> two complementary Scheme-alike languages: one without any side effects
>> (no effects to be handled in STM, zero overhead) and one sub-language
>> having only the effects.  ((Though to distinguish them we chose to
>> express the latter in "long-wielded-s-expressions" a.k.a. "XML".))
>>
>> I'm pretty interested in your plans and progess.  Please keep me posted.
> It strikes me that the separation of purity and impurity here is
> almost precisely what Haskell does with the separation of the "actual"
> language and the IO data type.

In a way yes.

> In any case, my (vague) plan is a relatively simple R7RS compiler,
> with everything as a transaction (both mutations and reads), and the
> possibility to combine multiple transactions into a larger
> transaction.  I/O is a bit mind-bending, so I'll go with "not a
> transaction, and will throw an error if you put in a transaction,"
> which is the default handling in pretty much every STM implementation
> I've seen.

Again: please keep me postet.  Sounds interesting.

/Jörg