2011/12/25 Tom Murphy
On the other hand: I'd _strongly_ argue against "making up our minds" about definitions within the Haskell community. Most of these concepts aren't Haskell-specific. An example of something to avoid is our definitions of "concurrency" and "parallellism." We as a community have specific, good definitions of each term. [1] So does the Erlang community. [2] Yet the definitions don't have anything to do with each other, which makes talking across communities more difficult.
amindfv / Tom
[0] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Eager_evaluation
[1] http://learnyousomeerlang.com/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-concurrency#dont-pani..., paragraph 4
[2] http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/concurrent-and-multicore-programming.h..., "Defining concurrency and parallelism"
I kindly beg to differ. To me concurrency and parallelism have global and cross-language definitions. The links you gave don't only define "concurrency" and "parallelism" in absolute as they focus their definition around Erlang's and Haskell's *models *of concurrency/parallelism. Still the broad idea remains.
I'd _strongly_ argue against "making up our minds" about definitions within the Haskell community. Most of these concepts aren't Haskell-specific.
My referencial was Haskell-centric. And we can go by steps: first come to a consensus within the Haskellers and then give broad definitions that concerne every language.