|Sisal? email@example.com (1994-09-14)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-09-18)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (U-E59264-Osman Buyukisik) (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-19)|
|Re: Sisal? firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-21)|
|Re: Sisal? email@example.com (Robert Bernecky) (1994-09-23)|
|From:||U-E59264-Osman Buyukisik <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Mon, 19 Sep 1994 12:27:46 GMT|
>> Where might I find discussions/critiques/rebuttals regarding
>> Sisal? Is this dataflow/single-assignment language
>> "functional", and how does it manage to beat Fortran?
It only beats FORTRAN on multi-processor parallel machines. It is first
order, strict, and mono-morphic, however still a functional language. Most
functional languages are easier to put into a parallel form than FORTRAN.
Also as Preston said, the global optimization is simpler for FLs. Sisal
even beats "c" on my HP710 workstation. I tried the "pseudo-knot"
benchmark (numerical) and Sisal was 30-40% faster even though I was using
the same "gcc" compiler! The other parallel (already) functional language
that was in the same benchmark suite was Concurrent-Clean. This one works
with native code so it is available only on a few platforms (linux,
macintosh, suns). It is very fast lazy, Milner typed, modern I/O. Sisal is
going to be upgraded to version 2.0 (soon?). This new version will be
polymorphic, higher order functions,.. There is a paper describing the new
version at /pub/sisal::sisal.llnl.gov as well as examples, current
implementations. There is even a paper "Is FORTRAN dead?" ! The examples
are large programs (one for Weather simulation) originally written in
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.