On 29 May 2007 14:13:27 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Spencer) wrote: >Since this discussion >has been going on for over three decades with little progress in terms >of widespread change, one has to ask: is parallel programming just too >difficult for most programmers? Are the tools inadequate or perhaps is >it that it is very difficult to think about parallel systems? Maybe it >is a fundamental human limit. Will we really see progress in the next 10 >years that matches the progress of the silicon?"
Depending on one's definition of parallel programming, we have been doing to various degrees since before they started off-loading the paper-tape reading to the paper-tape reader. Video cards on PCs are powerful computers that work in parallel with the program's main logic. Our operating systems have allowed us to run payroll and accounts payable at the same time, and central databases have expanded on this ability. So it seems that the complaint is that we don't have a lot of explicit programming in threads, where the programmer decided that the inventory program can process a widget's price while waiting for the database to update its count. Except that the database is doing that anyway. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
