

Erlang-in-Haskell: an Erlang-like distributed computing framework for Haskell - hanszeir
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/ErlangInHaskell

======
zmanian
Here is a related paper. [http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/um/people/simonpj/papers...](http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/)

~~~
gtani
CHP's relevant also (go back to ~mar 2010 for intro-ish posts)

<http://chplib.wordpress.com/>

------
zmanian
Does anyone have an ideas for practical applications for distributed haskell?
It seems like a this would thrive in an application that combines multiple
concurrency models.

~~~
dons
Yeah, that's the idea I think. Multiscale parallelism: distributed parallelism
across multiple nodes, shared-memory parallelism on each (multicore) node, all
in one language.

~~~
thesz
Most of all done in library, as opposed to language or runtime feature.

~~~
jlouis
You can do that in Haskell because it compiles to fast code the CPU can
understand. Like Scala, this means you can get away with the library, but
_unlike_ Scala, Haskell has a computation model which make library-based
extensions feel as if they are part of the language.

Ocaml has had success in this area as well, but the base language is a bit
less pliable compared to Haskell, so it does not feel as fluent.

What I don't like about the shared-local, message-pass-global approach is that
you have two kinds of concurrency in the same application. I'd much rather go
with one, and in that case it must be the latter.

~~~
anonymousDan
If you don't mind me asking, what are the disadvantages of having this as a
feature in the language/runtime (as opposed to providing it as a library). Is
it that it keeps the language simple? Also, can you give a bit some examples
of the advantages Haskell has over Scala/Ocaml for the library based approach?

