News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by stcredzero on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @11:50AM (#423605)
I'd rather have some sort of support for multiple cores without real threads.

Stackless seems like a good alternative to Erlang.

Take the two statements above as standalone.

Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by russell on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @12:04PM (#423630)
I agree that Stackless is better. Threads are very heavyweight. The problem is that the underlying C interpreter works on only one core. If Stackless can work with multiple interpreters then it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I haven't been following it closely enough to say for sure.
Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by stcredzero on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @01:40PM (#423754)
All you have to do is build a mechanism that distributes threads between interpreter processes then just spawn an interpreter for each core. For many applications, that's all you need.
Re:Don't Bet on Moore Saving Your Ass by likpok on Wednesday January 07, 2009 @02:09PM (#423790)
I seem to recall a benchmark that showed Erlang as much faster than Stackless (for an admittedly relatively arbitrary problem).