<p>As stated by the title. Some examples that I would include would be map and conditionals. What other functions should be built in already parallel for users to expand on it?</p>

CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-09-16T11:02:25.843Z
I do not know anything about the theory of programming languages, and I cannot possibly answer this question, but I want to express my strong disagreement to the bogus claim that this question is off topic.  Contrary to the fact that this question was closed with a bogus reason “off topic,” the consensus on the [meta question](http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21/compiler-design-and-pl-theory-questions) seems to be that the theory of programming languages is perfectly in scope, which I agree.  (more)
Tsuyoshi Ito
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-09-16T11:02:53.783Z
(Cont’d)  Moreover, one of the users who voted to close this question explained on the meta page that he did so because the question was too broad, not because the theory of programming languages was out of scope.  I sincerely hope that the unfortunate fact that this question was somehow closed with the bogus label “off topic” will not make people working on the theory of programming languages turn their back on this website.
Tsuyoshi Ito
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-09-16T17:55:22.980Z
Unfortunately voting to close doesn't give you very many reasons to choose from. Still, it wasn't me, and actually I think the question is reasonable clear, though perhaps a little less theoretical than usual. Obviously it is way outside my area of expertise though. If anything, this seems to be right for a (maybe not so) big-list type question.
Joe Fitzsimons
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-09-17T11:19:27.873Z
I agree with the "not a real question" close.  What is "an explicitly parallel language"?  Is Fortran one, say?  This question would be criticised if it were asked on LtU.
Charles Stewart
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-17T05:50:55.340Z
So far this is at -2 with a pair of close requests. My question is something I wouldn't be shocked to see on Lambda the Ultimate, which is well respected for Programming Language Theory discussion. Is that not included in our definition of TCS, or am I just totally insane here?
Greg
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-17T07:40:09.317Z
I think it's at odds with the "theoretical" part. I am also sad that there's no good home for this type of question.

There IS a proposal for a compiler design stackexchange here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/7848/compiler-design

I suggest that you commit to that and help it become real. Even though it's called "compiler design", it seems likely that they'll deal with issues of compiler, language, and runtime design, since the three are so closely related.
blucz
CC BY-SA 2.5
2010-08-17T08:05:56.353Z
maybe we should discuss on meta ? http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21/compiler-design-and-pl-theory-questions
Suresh Venkat
<dc.parallel-comp><language-design>
When designing an explicitly parallel language, what built in functions should be parallelized?
Greg
# When designing an explicitly parallel language, what built in functions should be parallelized?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2010-08-17)

As stated by the title. Some examples that I would include would be map and conditionals. What other functions should be built in already parallel for users to expand on it?

**Tags:** dc.parallel-comp, language-design

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So far this is at -2 with a pair of close requests. My question is something I wouldn't be shocked to see on Lambda the Ultimate, which is well respected for Programming Language Theory discussion. Is that not included in our definition of TCS, or am I just totally insane here?  
> **username_4**: I think it's at odds with the "theoretical" part. I am also sad that there's no good home for this type of question.  There IS a proposal for a compiler design stackexchange here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/7848/compiler-design  I suggest that you commit to that and help it become real. Even though it's called "compiler design", it seems likely that they'll deal with issues of compiler, language, and runtime design, since the three are so closely related.  
> **username_5**: maybe we should discuss on meta ? http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21/compiler-design-and-pl-theory-questions  
> **username_1**: I do not know anything about the theory of programming languages, and I cannot possibly answer this question, but I want to express my strong disagreement to the bogus claim that this question is off topic.  Contrary to the fact that this question was closed with a bogus reason “off topic,” the consensus on the [meta question](http://meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/21/compiler-design-and-pl-theory-questions) seems to be that the theory of programming languages is perfectly in scope, which I agree.  (more)  
> **username_1**: (Cont’d)  Moreover, one of the users who voted to close this question explained on the meta page that he did so because the question was too broad, not because the theory of programming languages was out of scope.  I sincerely hope that the unfortunate fact that this question was somehow closed with the bogus label “off topic” will not make people working on the theory of programming languages turn their back on this website.  
> **username_2**: Unfortunately voting to close doesn't give you very many reasons to choose from. Still, it wasn't me, and actually I think the question is reasonable clear, though perhaps a little less theoretical than usual. Obviously it is way outside my area of expertise though. If anything, this seems to be right for a (maybe not so) big-list type question.  
> **username_3**: I agree with the "not a real question" close.  What is "an explicitly parallel language"?  Is Fortran one, say?  This question would be criticised if it were asked on LtU.  

---

## 0 answers

