Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Koroskin Denis]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:58:31 +0400, Robert Fraser  
<fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote:

> Me Here Wrote:
>> Web servers and other IO-bound processes are *not* the target of
>> multithreading.
>
> How do functional programming styles apply better to I/O-bound systems?
> I couldn't imagine writing a query processor using monads for all I/O.
>
> Functional programming works well for a subset of applications which
> require concurrency. The question is: is this subset large enough to  
> justify
> designing a language's concurrency support around this paradigm? Is it
> large enough to justify forcing additional language constructs (const)  
> for
> applications that don't use this paradigm to handle their concurrency?  
> For
> non-concurrent applications?
>
> Of course, there are other arguments for a const system (static checking
> of interfaces, etc.) But what other major new statically-typed languages
> (besides D) have such a system? Java mostly threw it out (there's final
> fields & what not). C-pound threw out even more of it. I ahve the same
> feelings towards const-as-interface as I do towards checked exceptions:
> sounds great on paper, but ends up wasting the developer's time.
>
> (apologies for the web interface; @ work)

No reason for apologies, it's hardly anyone would notice if you didn't  
stress that!
And even so!