On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:35:20 +0100, B. Estrade - estr...@gmail.com
+nntp+browseruk+c4c81fb0fa.estrabd#gmail@spamgourmet.com wrote:
The future is indeed multicore - or, rather, *many-core. What this
means is that however the hardware jockeys have to strap them together
on a single node,
After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some
remarks.
Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things.
The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require, parallelism.
It is left for the implementors to resolve whether a single or
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
: After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some
: remarks.
:
: Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things.
:
: The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require,
:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
After reading this thread and S17, I have lots of questions and some
remarks.
Parallelism and Concurrency could be considered to be two different things.
The hyperoperators and junctions imply, but do not require,
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 03:48:10PM +0400, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
...snip
But as you say, this is not a simple problem to solve; our response
should not be to punt this to future generations, but to solve it
as best as we can,
