Roman V. Shaposhnik writes:
If we were to oversimplify things [then the] brain
is, at its core, limited by a very fundamental biological constraint:
speed at which cells can communicate. A sort of propagation delay
if we were to use electronics as an analogy. It seems to be agreed
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:05PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
It is slightly depressing to think that the situation has not really
changed since EWD wrote this in 1975. It will take some young
whippersnapper of a Dijkstra or Hoare or Strachey or Iverson or Backus
to find the critical insight
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:05PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
It is slightly depressing to think that the situation has not really
changed since EWD wrote this in 1975. It will take some young
whippersnapper of a Dijkstra or
I think useful parallel programming paradigms can very probably be
abstracted from really big systems like a national health system or an
army. How parallelism is employed in those systems, would be a good
starting point for a deeper investigation.
Especially a military system must have some very
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:05PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
It is slightly depressing to think that the situation has not really
changed since EWD wrote this in 1975. It will take some young
whippersnapper of a Dijkstra or Hoare
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 13:50, Roman V. Shaposhnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most efficient is to have tools that match the way our brains work
(or not...). I'm not convinced our brains are parallel (at least mines
are not).
I
Is the human thought process parallel? For _my capacities_, I have the
impression that I'm more multitask than parallel. And context switch is
expensive because there is not only explicit data, but also implicit and
I'm not able, if I'm really doing something involved, to restore the
previous
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 08:50:28AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
i don't see how csp is *not* parallel processing. as soon
as you have more than 1 work process per client, i would call
that parallel processing.
It's a kind of parallelism, of course. But since it makes sense, it is
not
I disagree on philosophical grounds ;-) It's been one of the major
engineering follies to always approach design from a just follow
the nature standpoint. No wonder that before the Wright brothers
everybody thought the best way to fly is to flap some kind of wings.
off topic, but to note:
found this snippet today and decided to share it with the list. every
once in a while a look at how the rest of the world does things is
beneficial :)
I don't know about you, but every time I have to program with threads
and shared resources, I want to remove my face incrementally with a
salad
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:11:19AM -0600, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
found this snippet today and decided to share it with the list. every
once in a while a look at how the rest of the world does things is
beneficial :)
I don't know about you, but every time I have to program with threads
On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:11 PM, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
salad fork. Locks, mutexes, the synchronized keyword; all of these
things can strike fear into the heart of a green developer. Most
That's what you get for using Java.
On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm unable to
Don Knuth:
I'm unable to judge what ideas about parallelism are likely to
be useful five or ten years from now, let alone fifty, so I happily
leave such questions to others who are wiser than I.
Pietro:
By that time, ...
If only I could tell him that without having to wait for the snail!
I
Don Knuth:
I'm unable to judge what ideas about parallelism are likely to
be useful five or ten years from now, let alone fifty, so I happily
leave such questions to others who are wiser than I.
Pietro:
By that time, ...
If only I could tell him that without having to wait for the snail!
14 matches
Mail list logo
