←back to thread

193 points ingve | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
FuckButtons ◴[] No.43712793[source]
I thought it was a bit odd that the author claims there’s no mutexes in sight, the TVar is effectively a mutex guard unless I’m misunderstanding this? (I’ve written exactly 0 lines of Haskel). Or is the claim that the lack of ceremony and accidental complexity around threading is the real win for concurrency here?
replies(6): >>43713040 #>>43713043 #>>43713044 #>>43713127 #>>43714265 #>>43714335 #
dsign ◴[] No.43713044[source]
You are correct, Haskell has quite a few mutex-like types. MVar is one of them.

However, if memory serves me right, TVar is a building block for the transactional memory subsystem. The guard on TVar with, say, modifyTVar is not really stopping execution at entrance but simply indicating that the block modifies the variable. In my mental model, some magic happens in an STM block that checks if two concurrent STM blocks acted upon the same data at the same time, and if so, it reverts the computations of one of the blocks and repeats them with new data.

To my knowledge, Haskell is the only programming language (+runtime) that has a working transactional memory subsystem. It has been in the language for about 20 years, and in that time many have tried (and failed) to also implement STM.

replies(2): >>43713050 #>>43713083 #
whateveracct ◴[] No.43713083[source]
I think Clojure has some kind of STM too?

Haskell's STM is pretty world-class though. That's fair to say :)

replies(1): >>43713157 #
dwohnitmok ◴[] No.43713157[source]
Clojure's STM never really took off because, for various reasons, it's not as easy to compose as Haskell's (where you can build up a big library of STM blocks and piece them together at the very edges of your program). As such Clojure's STM implementation doesn't actually have a great reputation within the Clojure ecosystem where it isn't usually used in most production codebases (whereas in Haskell STM is often one of the first tools used in any production codebase with concurrency).

Basically it's the difference between focusing only on transactional variables without having a good way of marking what is and isn't part of a larger transaction and having a higher-order abstraction of an `STM` action that clearly delineates what things are transactions and what aren't.

replies(2): >>43714468 #>>43718199 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.43714468[source]
You missed a very important detail, the language runtime.

While Haskell's runtime is designed for Haskell needs, Clojure has to be happy with whatever JVM designers considered relevant for Java the language, the same on the other platforms targeted by Clojure.

This is yet another example of a platform being designed for a language, and being a guest language on a platform.

replies(1): >>43716662 #
1. dwohnitmok ◴[] No.43716662{3}[source]
I don't think this is a limitation of the JVM. When I've used Clojure's STM implementation it's been perfectly serviceable (barring the composability issues I mentioned). Likewise when I've used the various STM libraries in Scala. Eta (basically a Haskell implementation on the JVM that unfortunately stalled in development) also had a fine STM implementation.

It's more of a combination of API and language decisions rather than the underlying JVM.