groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James NORTHROP <james.north...@orange.fr>
Subject re: GPars 2 Stuff
Date Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:41:57 GMT
Would second the motion to reduce redundancy where possible, as it reduces duplication of effort
in testing, docs, etc. where, maybe, we can get GPars down to a core minimum of functionality,
above and beyond what java provides; essentially as the (b)leading edge of concurrency.

 

We may reach a point where Java 1.9+ includes everything we could possibly provide in GPars
2.0+ thus making GPars redundant. Isn't that the best we could hope for ? To make the JVM
realm the premier choice for parallel/concurrent solutions ? Just a thought.

Thx

Jim

 

 

 

 

> Message du 03/01/18 19:51
> De : "Russel Winder" 
> A : "GPars Users" 
> Copie à : "Groovy_Users" 
> Objet : GPars 2 Stuff
> 
> In GPars 1.X it was possible to do things such as:
> 
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallel.reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)}
> 
> Without GPars it is possible using Groovy to achieve the exact same
> functionality on JDK8+ with:
> 
> [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallelStream().reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)}.get()
> 
> The question is therefore whether to remove the GPars 1.X behaviour
> from GPars 2.X since the functionality is available using nigh on the
> same just using JDK8+ features, or to mock it up using the JDK8+
> features.
> 
> Personally I am all for removing the GPars 1.X stuff from GPars 2.X,
> Ockham's Razor etc., so this will be the default action unless people
> get vocal and contribute. 
> 
> -- 
> Russel.
> ==========================================
> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
> 
>
> [ signature.asc (0.8 Ko) ]
Mime
View raw message