Interesting article about concurrent programming, any thoughts?

Discussion in 'C++' started by Sonoman, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. Sonoman

    Sonoman Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Victor Bazarov, Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. * Sonoman:
    >
    > http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm


    Herb does a good job of convinving the socially bound technicians
    (non-engineers, non-scientists, non-thinkers) of a self-evident
    historical fact. Namely that we'll increasingly be doing parallel and
    distributed processing, both hardware and software. The presentation is
    very well matched to what I presume is the intended audience.

    Minus: the graph of CPU-speeds presented seems to be exaggerated (at
    least visually the drawn graph doesn't seem to be anywhere near a best
    fit to the data) -- to make a point that is in all likehood true.

    With respect to C++ the now 60 years of historical precedent of ever
    more parallelism doesn't mean very much, just, AFAICS, (1) that it's
    over time to get some standardized threading support as other languages
    have enjoyed the last few decades, and (2) that C++ and other
    conventional thread-viewpoint languages will in all likelyhood continue
    their migration toward pure support roles. I wish Herb would write an
    article about those aspects. That kind of thing is what he excels at.

    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
    Alf P. Steinbach, Jan 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

    > Herb does a good job of convinving the socially bound technicians
    > (non-engineers, non-scientists, non-thinkers) of a self-evident
    > historical fact. Namely that we'll increasingly be doing parallel and
    > distributed processing, both hardware and software. The presentation is
    > very well matched to what I presume is the intended audience.
    >
    > Minus: the graph of CPU-speeds presented seems to be exaggerated (at
    > least visually the drawn graph doesn't seem to be anywhere near a best
    > fit to the data) -- to make a point that is in all likehood true.
    >
    > With respect to C++ the now 60 years of historical precedent of ever
    > more parallelism doesn't mean very much, just, AFAICS, (1) that it's
    > over time to get some standardized threading support as other languages
    > have enjoyed the last few decades, and (2) that C++ and other
    > conventional thread-viewpoint languages will in all likelyhood continue
    > their migration toward pure support roles. I wish Herb would write an
    > article about those aspects. That kind of thing is what he excels at.



    From a message of mine in clc++m:

    I think what we really need for concurrency so as to take advantage of
    multicore processors in straight-forward applications (that is our usual
    applications that have no reason to have concurrent design), is a safe
    language level support in the style of OpenMP (which as far as I know is
    not safe in the sense that it is "hard-coded" and does not throw
    exceptions in case of errors for example).


    Perhaps the "safe part", should be additional compiler checks on such
    multithreading declarations.



    OpenMP: http://www.openmp.org



    VC++ 2005 will support OpenMP 2.




    --
    Ioannis Vranos

    http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys
    Ioannis Vranos, Jan 20, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sol
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    449
    Newsgroups
    Jan 31, 2004
  2. Pep
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    819
  3. Casey Hawthorne
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,063
    Casey Hawthorne
    Jan 16, 2006
  4. Nick Coghlan
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    458
  5. Jerry Mcnealy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
    Jerry Mcnealy
    Aug 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page