Hacker News Reader

Comment by ecopoesis | Hacker News Reader

By default, Scala's parallel collections use fork/join on JVMs > 6, so using Scala probably isn't going to change much for you.[1]

Also, note that this guy's company makes software that directly competes with the JVM's fork/join framework, so he's not exactly an unbiased source.[2]

[1] http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/parallel-collections/co...

[2] http://www.coopsoft.com/Products.html

View on HN

Very good point, they also have a VERY cool website http://www.coopsoft.com/

According to the meta tag, it's generated with Microsoft FrontPage 5.0.

WOW :) Haha, that's way too funny, I made my first website with Frontpage around year 2000.

The way this problems change in Scala is not by using the parallel collections library, but by using Akka straight up, or using Spark.

Akka is an actor system framework, so it's extremely well suited for this problem.

Spark can process tremendous amounts of data in parallel, even over hundreds of machines if you really have the iron, and works just as well with just one machine.

You can technically use them both from Java, but being natively Scala libraries, you are really better off switching to Scala if you are going to use them.

Indeed, the Akka team published an blog post [1] a while back that demonstrates superior performance versus a traditional thread pool. The actor model seems to be a very favorable use case for F/J though.

[1] http://letitcrash.com/post/17607272336/scalability-of-fork-j...

Just the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com