[concurrency-interest] Economist article

Gregg Wonderly gregg at cytetech.com
Tue Jun 14 18:20:17 EDT 2011


On 6/14/2011 5:02 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> And it's always written as-if we'd never had multi-processors before we had
> multi-core.

That's a fair viewpoint, but multi-processor machines were a rare occurrence. 
Only when multi-core hit the desktop was there plenty of places to "witness" the 
problems of single path software designs on multi-path processor systems.

In so many ways, multi-core was "sprung" on software developers and their 
development tool sets with little help and support for developers to understand 
and adequately "prove" software systems to be safe and operate as designed, really!

Gregg Wonderly

> 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><http://www.economist.com/node/18750706?frsc=dg%7Ca>
>             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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list