[racket] racket, scheme, and message-passing clusters?

From: Hendrik Boom (hendrik at topoi.pooq.com)
Date: Tue Oct 5 21:58:23 EDT 2010

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:14:10PM +0000, chris lanz wrote:
> Thanks to Jay and Robby for their replies.
> I honestly don't care what form of message-passing I use, I just don't want to
> write my own. My app will eventually run different very large programs (100,000
> lines of C-like procedural code) on clustered machines controlled by a head node.
> I have to rewrite all my original code in SOMETHING (it's in PASCAL because
> that's what I'm virtuosic in and that's what I've been using for 25 years) 
> and I
> was preparing to rewrite in C and use MPI, but I've decided it's better to
> switch all at once.

There's a very reasonable systems language with a Pascal-like syntax, 
but without Pascal-like semantic restrictions, called Modula 3.  It's 
not the same as Wirth's Modula 2 -- it wasn't even designed by him, but by a 
different group of very competent people at SRC long ago.  Yes, it's 
object-oriented, type-safe, and garbage-collected, escept for very 
specific UNSAFE features, which cannot be used by accident.  Go see its 
wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula-3) for general info 
about the language, and links to the currently available implementation, 
CM3, at elegosoft.

Given where you're coming from, I'd say that if you don't choose Modula 
3 (and you well might not) you should make sure you know why.

-- hendrik

Posted on the users mailing list.