Damian Conway wrote:

Perhaps we need to think more Perlishly and reframe the entire question.
Not: "What threading model do we need?", but: "What kinds of non-sequential
programming tasks do we want to make easy...and how would we like to be
able to specify those tasks?"

The mindset that I use goes something like "most tasks are potentially concurrent: sequentialization is an optimization that most people perform without even thinking".

Generally, I would split concurrency into producer-consumer (i.e. message passing) and stream-processing (for hyper and reduction operators -- possibly also for feeds, with a kernel per step). When dealing with compute-tasks, you're basically just choosing how to map a dependency graph to the available compute resources. When dealing with external resources (e.g. sockets, GUI) then explicit parallelism (via message passing) becomes useful.

P6 already specifies a whole bunch of non-sequential tasks (hypers, reductions, feeds, background-lazy lists), so no need to reframe the entire question just yet. Implementing the existing concurrency will flush out plenty of flaws in the specs.

Reply via email to