Going back to this post (to avoid distraction), I note that
Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol
and its successor
High Level Architecture
Both provide time management to achieve consistency, i.e. so that the
times for all simulations appear the same to users and so that event
causality is
David Barbour wrote:
Going back to this post (to avoid distraction), I note that
Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol
and its successor
High Level Architecture
Both provide time management to achieve consistency, i.e. so that
the times for all simulations appear the same to users and so that
Distributed time-management can be problematic for scaling.
There are solutions for it. They involve structuring communication so time
management can be performed locally and incrementally rather than as a
global pass. Lightweight time warp protocol does this with a little
hierarchy. My reactive
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
David, I'm sorry to say, but every time I see a description of reactive
demand programming, I'm left scratching my head trying to figure out what
it is you're talking about. Do you have a set of slides, or a
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Pennell pennell.da...@gmail.comwrote:
On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:50 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
David, I'm sorry to say, but every time I see a description
David Barbour wrote:
Your approach to parallelism strikes me as simplistic. Like saying
Earth is in center of Solar system. Sun goes around Earth. It sounds
simple. It's easy to conceptualize. Oh, and it requires epicyclic
orbits to account for every other planet. Doesn't sound so simple
Apologies to David Ungar - should have had another cup of coffee before
sending this. I went back to the original post that started this thread
(pointing to a talk by David Ungar). The promptly mixed up David Ungar
and David Barbour in my thinking. Ooops. Apologies. Arguement remains
the
David Barbour wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
The whole point of architecture is to generate the overall outline
of a system, to address a particular problem space within the
constraints at
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
Outside of mainstream, there are a lot more options. Lightweight time
warp. Synchronous reactive. Temporal logic. Event calculus. Concurrent
constraint. Temporal concurrent constraint. Functional reactive
Is Ungar focusing on general-purpose computing or just high-performance
computing?
Unless he's strictly talking about HPC, he could be way off the mark. For
the past 5-10 years there's been a general assumption that massive
parallelism will be necessary as CPU speeds max out. But then there's
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Tom Novelli tnove...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if there does turn out to be a simple and general way to do parallel
programming, there'll always be tradeoffs weighing against it - energy usage
and design complexity, to name two obvious ones.
Not necessarily.
As to
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Tom Novellitnove...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if there does turn out to be a simple and general way to do parallel
programming, there'll always be tradeoffs weighing against it -
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 08:19:53AM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
That said, I also disagree with Tom, there: design complexity doesn't need
to increase with parallelism. The tradeoff between complexity vs.
parallelism is more an artifact of sticking with imperative programming.
It's not just
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 08:19:53AM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
That said, I also disagree with Tom, there: design complexity doesn't need
to increase with parallelism. The tradeoff between complexity vs.
parallelism is more an artifact of sticking with imperative
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
It's not just imperative programming. The superficial mode of human
cognition is sequential. This is the problem with all of mathematics
and computer science as well.
Perhaps human attention is basically sequential, as we're
David Barbour wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
mailto:eu...@leitl.org wrote:
It's not just imperative programming. The superficial mode of human
cognition is sequential. This is the problem with all of mathematics
and computer science as well.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
And for that matter, driving a car, playing a sport, walking and chewing
gum at the same time :-)
Would this be a Flintstones racecar?
I can think of a lot of single-threaded interfaces that put people in a
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the parallel programming models of the future will look more like
Dedalus, Bloom, synchronous reactive, or concurrent constraint programming.
Or my reactive demand programming. Dataflows, with lots of isolation
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
Hah. You've obviously never been involved in building a CGF simulator
(Computer Generated Forces) - absolute spaghetti code when you have to have
4 main loops, touch 2000 objects (say 2000 tanks) every simulation
On 4/3/2012 9:46 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Barbour wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
mailto:eu...@leitl.org wrote:
It's not just imperative programming. The superficial mode of human
cognition is sequential. This is the problem with all of
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
But there are good architectures that won't become spaghetti code in
these circumstances. If you pipelined 2000 tank data objects through four
processes each instant, for example (i.e. so tanks 1-100 are in the
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.netwrote:
You seem to be starting from the assumption that process per object is a
good thing.
absolutely - I come from a networking background - you spawn a process for
everything - it's conceptually simpler all around
Any last submissions?
The reviewers are the core contributors from last year.
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of Max
Orhai
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Everything You Know (about Parallel
Sorry about the last post. It was a mistake.
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of Max
Orhai
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is
Wrong!: A Wild Screed
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Max Orhai max.or...@gmail.com wrote:
Probability is highly applicable to (bounded) nondeterminism, but I get
the impression that most CS theorists don't tend to learn much about it,
and I know for sure that it gets extremely short shrift in the applied CS
http://splashcon.org/2011/program/dls/245-invited-talk-2
Mon 2:00-3:00 pm - Pavilion East
Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed
about the Future
invited speakerDavid Ungar, IBM Research, USA
In the 1970’s, researchers at Xerox PARC gave themselves a glimpse
Hi--
Was the talk recorded?
thanks,
-C
--
Craig Latta
www.netjam.org/resume
+31 6 2757 7177
+ 1 415 287 3547
+ 1 510 282 7468
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
On 03/27/2012 10:03 AM, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi--
Was the talk recorded?
Hi Craig,
As far as I know, the talk itself was not recorded. 'Twas a good talk,
though. Among other things, Dave brilliantly and entertainingly
illustrated race conditions using the plot of Romeo and Juliet.
there is a pdf from Nov 2011:
http://www.dynamic-languages-symposium.org/dls-11/program/media/Ungar_2011_EverythingYouKnowAboutParallelProgrammingIsWrongAWildScreedAboutTheFuture_Dls.pdf
On 3/27/12 1:03 PM, Craig Latta wrote:
Hi--
Was the talk recorded?
thanks,
-C
--
Craig
Slides/pdf:
http://www.dynamic-languages-symposium.org/dls-11/program/media/Ungar_2011_EverythingYouKnowAboutParallelProgrammingIsWrongAWildScreedAboutTheFuture_Dls.pdf
Karl
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Craig Latta cr...@netjam.org wrote:
Hi--
Was the talk recorded?
thanks,
karl ramberg wrote:
Slides/pdf:
http://www.dynamic-languages-symposium.org/dls-11/program/media/Ungar_2011_EverythingYouKnowAboutParallelProgrammingIsWrongAWildScreedAboutTheFuture_Dls.pdf
Granted that their approach to an OLAP cube is new, but the folks behind
Erlang, and Carl Hewitt
On 3/27/2012 12:23 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
karl ramberg wrote:
Slides/pdf:
http://www.dynamic-languages-symposium.org/dls-11/program/media/Ungar_2011_EverythingYouKnowAboutParallelProgrammingIsWrongAWildScreedAboutTheFuture_Dls.pdf
Granted that their approach to an OLAP cube is new,
32 matches
Mail list logo
