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
(changed subject, as this was much more about physics simulation than
about concurrency).
yes, this is a big long personal history dump type thing, please
ignore if you don't care.
On 4/3/2012 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Barbour wrote:
Control flow is a source of much implicit
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
