<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Don Stewart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dons@galois.com">dons@galois.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
wchogg:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dougal Stanton <<a href="mailto:dougal@dougalstanton.net">dougal@dougalstanton.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > 2008/10/3 Galchin, Vasili <<a href="mailto:vigalchin@gmail.com">vigalchin@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
> >> Hello,<br>
> >><br>
> >> One of my interests based on my education is "grand challenge science".<br>
> >> Ok .. let's take the CERN Hadrian Accelerator.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Where do you think Haskell can fit into the CERN Hadrian effort<br>
> >> currently?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Where do you think think Haskell currently is lacking and will have to<br>
> >> be improved in order to participate in CERN Hadrian?<br>
> ><br>
> > Is that the experiment where Picts are accelerated to just short of<br>
> > the speed of light in order to smash through to the Roman Empire? ;-)<br>
> ><br>
> > I don't know what the main computational challenges are to the LHC<br>
> > researchers. The stuff in the press has mostly been about<br>
> > infrastructure --- how to store the gigabytes of data per second that<br>
> > they end up keeping, out of the petabytes that are produced in the<br>
> > first place (or something).<br>
><br>
> Well, with the LHC efforts I don't think a technology like Haskell<br>
> really has a place...at least not now. Even just a few years back,<br>
> when I worked on this stuff, we were still doing lots of simulation in<br>
> preparation for the actual live experiment and Haskell might have been<br>
> a good choice for some of the tools. All of the detector simulation<br>
> was written in C++, because C++ is the new FORTRAN to physicists, and<br>
> you ain't seen nothing till you've seen a jury-rigged form of lazy<br>
> evaluation built into a class hierarchy in C++. Now, would the C++<br>
> based simulation have run faster than a Haskell based one? Quite<br>
> possibly. On the other hand, I remember how many delays and problems<br>
> were caused by the sheer complexity of the codebase. That's where a<br>
> more modern programming language might have been extremely helpful.<br>
<br>
</div></div>How about EDSLs for producing high assurance controllers, and other<br>
robust devices they might need. I imagine the LHC has a good need for<br>
verified software components...</blockquote><div> ^^ totally agree on the "verified" Don. Don, by controller do you mean an I/O controller??<br><br>Vasili <br></div></div><br></div>