www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Parallel programming paper

reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Has anyone heard of this?:

Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf

I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
But I don't really know Erlang. :-)

May be interesting food for thought.

--bb
Apr 05 2008
parent reply Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
 
 Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
 
 I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
 
 May be interesting food for thought.

Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever they determine them to mean, is a mystery to me. Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus "processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because of that I gave it a D- and quit. What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear to be the most talented often have no clue.
Apr 05 2008
parent reply "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0100, Edward Diener  
<eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
  Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
  I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on  
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance.  
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
  May be interesting food for thought.

Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever they determine them to mean, is a mystery to me. Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus "processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because of that I gave it a D- and quit. What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear to be the most talented often have no clue.

To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain assumptions about your readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time. For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D newsgroup. The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover without several weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is your friend).
Apr 06 2008
parent reply Edward Diener <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> writes:
Bruce Adams wrote:
 On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0100, Edward Diener 
 <eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:
 
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Has anyone heard of this?:
  Erasmus: A Modular Language for Concurrent Programming
 http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~grogono/Erasmus/E01.pdf
  I haven't really read it all the way through but it was mentioned on 
 another list I'm on.  Sounds a lot like Erlang to me at first glance. 
 But I don't really know Erlang. :-)
  May be interesting food for thought.

Why people write articles without defining basic terminology, as if like Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" words should mean whatever they determine them to mean, is a mystery to me. Reading a number of pages in the article, relating to OOP versus "processes", no definition of the latter term was even given ! Because of that I gave it a D- and quit. What is really needed is a university whose sole purpose is to teach computer programmers how to write discursive essays. Those who appear to be the most talented often have no clue.

To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain assumptions about your readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time. For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D newsgroup. The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover without several weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is your friend).

If the word "process" meant exactly one thing in computer programming, then I would agree with you. But the word "process" means something to me that evidently has no relation to whatever way the author of the article is using it, and I believe my understanding of it, after 30 years of programming, is that of the vast majority ( a process is a separate executable running within an operating system's address space ). Perhaps the author of the article should use a much more specific term, in general use, to describe whatever type of programming he means by "process", or at least provide an early reference to wherever the term is commonly defined. If you are arguing about the merits of OOP versus "process" programming, it behooves you to explain very explicitly what you mean by the latter term since the former has more than two decades of understanding behind it and the latter is some concept you are trying to introduce and promote.
Apr 06 2008
parent "Bruce Adams" <tortoise_74 yeah.who.co.uk> writes:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:54:26 +0100, Edward Diener  
<eddielee_no_spam_here tropicsoft.com> wrote:

 Bruce Adams wrote:

  To be fair, whatever you are writing you have to make certain  
 assumptions about your
 readers background knowledge. You can't introduce every term every time.
 For academic papers the target audience is most certainly not the D  
 newsgroup.
 The range of abilities and backgrounds here is too vast to cover  
 without several
 weighty tomes many of which would be boring to some. GIYF (Google is  
 your friend).

If the word "process" meant exactly one thing in computer programming, then I would agree with you. But the word "process" means something to me that evidently has no relation to whatever way the author of the article is using it, and I believe my understanding of it, after 30 years of programming, is that of the vast majority ( a process is a separate executable running within an operating system's address space ). Perhaps the author of the article should use a much more specific term, in general use, to describe whatever type of programming he means by "process", or at least provide an early reference to wherever the term is commonly defined. If you are arguing about the merits of OOP versus "process" programming, it behooves you to explain very explicitly what you mean by the latter term since the former has more than two decades of understanding behind it and the latter is some concept you are trying to introduce and promote.

Intrigued by this concept I googled and found: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/126677.html "Process programming refers to the activity of algorithmicly describing models of programming activities (processes). A serious limitation of process programming has been that it is often hard to describe a programming process a priori . In this paper we present an approach to process programming which overcomes this limitation. Our approach is based on the premise that process programs are easier to describe in hindsight rather than by foresight, and hence can be synthesized by observing and..." So process programming has an academic background going back to at least 1992 without reading any further. I suspect there will be something in the references somewhere. Now perhaps I should take a look at the paper you're complaining about before I comment further :-)
Apr 06 2008