Re: multi-core software
Jeff M. wrote: On Jun 9, 9:08 pm, Arved Sandstrom dces...@hotmail.com wrote: Jon Harrop wrote: Arved Sandstrom wrote: Jon, I do concurrent programming all the time, as do most of my peers. Way down on the list of why we do it is the reduction of latency. What is higher on the list? Correctness. IMO, that response is a bit of a cop-out. Correctness is _always_ most important, no matter what application you are creating; without it, you don't have a job and the company you work for goes out of business. And when, exactly, did Microsoft go out of business? I hadn't heard it mentioned in the news. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: multi-core software
Piet van Oostrum wrote: By the way, there is a series of articles about concurrency on ACM Queue which may be interesting for those participating in or just following this discussion: http://queue.acm.org/listing.cfm?item_topic=Concurrencyqc_type=theme_listfilter=Concurrencypage_title=Concurrency Here is one introductory paragraph from one of the articles: Parallel programming poses many new challenges to the developer, one of which is synchronizing concurrent access to shared memory by multiple threads. Programmers have traditionally used locks for synchronization, but lock-based synchronization has well-known pitfalls. Simplistic coarse-grained locking does not scale well, while more sophisticated fine-grained locking risks introducing deadlocks and data races. Furthermore, scalable libraries written using fine-grained locks cannot be easily composed in a way that retains scalability and avoids deadlock and data races. Is that the one about transactional memory? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
