[concurrency-interest] Economist article

David Holmes davidcholmes at aapt.net.au
Tue Jun 14 18:02:00 EDT 2011


And it's always written as-if we'd never had multi-processors before we had
multi-core.

David
  -----Original Message-----
  From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu
[mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu]On Behalf Of Joe Bowbeer
  Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 4:49 AM
  To: concurrency-interest
  Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Economist article


  The problem is always stated as "we have these multicores so now we have
to figure out how to use them".


  On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Tim Peierls wrote:
    I didn't pick up the everything-is-a-nail vibe. The article just points
out that languages, programmers, and educators are unexpectedly playing
catch-up because of the proliferation of multicores on the desktop,
something readers of the Economist probably wouldn't know about without
being in the biz.


    --tim


    On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:

      "Parallel programming, once an obscure niche, is the focus of
increasing interest as multicore chips proliferate in ordinary PCs."


      http://www.economist.com/node/18750706?frsc=dg%7Ca


      The article mentions Scala but not java.util.concurrent.


      To me, this problem still seems more "derivative" of the technology
and less driven by consumer demand, and I'm disappointed that The Economist
could not find a more compelling statement.


      Is this really a case of: To the man with a multi-headed hammer, every
problem looks like a multi-headed nail?


      Maybe my mobile-shaded perspective will change now that multicores are
shipping on handsets...


      Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20110615/dfde3822/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list