Listening to the whispers of your own creativity is always hard and fraught with error, but I am getting the strong sense that what we are up against is the idea that _processes_ are _things_ that are made up of _lines of code_ which _run_ on a _core_.
Well, a sheep is a _thing_ in a very real sense that a flock is not 'a thing' but only 'a way of looking'. And the 'running' part can be thought of as 'happening all the time' -- it is just from time to time we need to provide a coherant way of looking at things -- to present them as if they were a story, with a beginning and end and which happened over this period of time, sequentially. So we are selecting what story to tell, leaving out many that could be told were we interested in a different one. This is an odd way to think. Sort of like how the Copenhagen explanation for quantum mechanics implies that classical concepts can be used to describe quantum phenomenon. You try, and try, and try to think that way until your brain hurts. And one day you explode, and say 'there are no things here', 'there are no concepts', THERE IS ONLY THE MATH AND THE MATH WORKS. At this point you can begin to get 10/10 rather than 0-3 on your problem sets again. I fear that using multiple cores may be a similar problem to those who are so very used to sequential operation. We need a non-sequential way to think, and so far we haven't been very good at this. Laura _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
