On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net>wrote:
> On Thu Sep 3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, r...@sun.com wrote: > > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here > > is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that > > mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelism in their code. > > > > The other trick here is to find a model that makes things *natural*, and > > that means practically no explicit locking, less shared state, etc. > > > > The search for the model is meaningless unless it is used for > > solving *practical* challenges. In that respect, one of my > > favorite article is how implementation of a chess engine > > influenced Cilk framework (which almost has the notion of a "block") > > http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/icca99.pdf > > > > Read it, I don't think we can be on the same page (and escape the > > armchair philosophy trap) unless we are talking about practical > > applications of the framework. > > > > Look at the chess example -- can the same be done with pure C? Sure! > > Did Cilk make it less painful? Absolutely! > > my question was, what's naming your function pointers > or not got to do with locking? i'm asking about the language > construct, not the library er i mean "framework" and maybe runtime > that goes with it. > > Maybe if you see the block implementation you wouldn't think it was merely naming a function pointer? http://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockImplementation.txt Dave > - erik > >
