cragge@AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU (05/27/90)
The following message was received at info-ada-request ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: ??? Received: by ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA25069; Fri, 25 May 90 08:10:21 -0400 Received: from TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL by ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA25063; Fri, 25 May 90 08:10:13 -0400 Date: Fri 25 May 90 08:11:11-EST From: CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL Subject: Ted & Ada To: info-ada-request@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu Message-Id: <12592493215.10.CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL> >Why should any language BE concerned with parallelism? >Tasking is naturally an operating system feature; the idea of >tasking as a part of a language is one of the dumber ideas since >communism. Gee Ted, you better extend your feelings to the C/C++ community concerning AT&T's introduction of Concurrent C. >There's no right way to do it, as a careful reading of the 750 >little "problems" should make obvious to anybody. They did a good job with C/C++ - I bet they can do it again with Concurrent C. >In all truth, I can't really believe that any of the serious >people in this group who have read through any of that would >argue this point with me. I personally think AT&T is very serious - but time will tell. If enough people "spread the word" about the dangers of parallelism within a language, may be Concurrent C, Occam, and other such languages can be killed off before it's too late. - -- joe carozzoni - ------- ------- End of Forwarded Message