News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998). Parent comment

Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by rbehrends on Saturday April 15, 2017 @07:19PM (#14123397)
Strictly speaking, it's not parallelism, but multi-threaded code that operates on shared memory and which is not limited to arrays over scalars.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by Symmetry on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:21AM (#14126078)
You're talking about data parallelism, the OP is talking about task parallelism. Since in both cases things are occurring in parallel it makes sense to use 'parallelism' as an umbrella term for both and it was clear from context here that it was task parallelism under discussion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why ML/OCaml are good for writing compilers (1998) by rbehrends on Sunday April 16, 2017 @12:18PM (#14126279)
I am talking about both. You can have task parallelism in a distributed system with no shared memory, after all.
[ Parent | on HN ]