robert%zeus@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Roberto Togneri) (09/24/90)
Hi, We are currenlt starting to use the Transputer Development System and feel that occam has more to offer than parallel C. However this means that we will have to rewrite our algorithms from C to occam. This is ok for the transputer/parallel specific stuff but given the existence of fortran to C and pascal to C translator does anybody know of a C to occam or even a Pascal to occam translator? In fact I've seen very little on occam (there is no comp.lang.occam). What is the prevailing attitude to transputers and occam? One reason we are using occam is that it has the ALT operation which parallel C doesn't (appear) to have. Any help appreciated. -- Dr. Roberto Togneri Dept. of EE Engineering EMAIL: robert@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au The University of Western Australia INTERNET: robert@zeus.ee.uwa.oz.au
rob@dutncp8.tudelft.nl (Rob Kurver) (09/25/90)
In <robert.654145325@zeus> robert%zeus@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Roberto Togneri) writes: >One reason we are >using occam is that it has the ALT operation which parallel C doesn't (appear) >to have. Any help appreciated. If this is the main reason for using Occam, you may want to reconsider: There do exist C compilers for transputers that offer the same parallel constructs as Occam (par, alt, channel datatype) - my company offers one. I don't want to plug a commercial product here, so contact me by email (rob@pact.nl) if you're interested. Cheers. - Rob -- Rob Kurver rob@dutncp8.tudelft.nl Computational Physics Group rob@pact.nl Faculty of Applied Physics, Delft University of Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away.
geoff@hls0.hls.oz (Geoff Bull) (09/27/90)
In article <robert.654145325@zeus> robert%zeus@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Roberto Togneri) writes: > >What is the prevailing attitude to transputers and occam? One reason we are Occam is a real a______e for any reasonable sized program. It is a really bad D unless your application is really well suited to the Occam programming model and its not huge. Programmer productivity with Occam is about 10% of that with C. Do yourself a favour - leave Occam alone!
agn@research7.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Alvaro Garcia Neto) (09/29/90)
> Occam is a real a______e for any reasonable sized program. > It is a really bad D unless your application is really well suited to the > Occam programming model and its not huge. Programmer productivity with Occam > is about 10% of that with C. Do yourself a favour - leave Occam alone! You are entitled to a personal opinion, of course, but that is all it is. Here at the Univ. Manchester, I've coded in occam a event-driven instruction level-dataflow simulator. Occam is not targeted at simulation, and the 110,000 lines of code make it too sizeable for my liking. Occam proved suffient for the project needs. In fact, if I had to start again, I'd probably still do it in occam. This is also only a personal opinion, of course... 'Alvaro --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Alvaro Garcia Neto | JANET: agn@uk.ac.man.cs.r7 Dept. Computer Science | USENET: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!man.cs.r7!agn University of Manchester | BITNET: agn%r7.cs.man.ac.uk@ukacrl.bitnet Manchester, M12 9PL, UK | Internet: agn%r7.cs.man.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------