digitalmars.D - std.parallelism: Request for Resumption of Review
- dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> Apr 11 2011
- bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Apr 11 2011
- Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> Apr 12 2011
- Don <nospam nospam.com> Apr 12 2011
- Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Apr 12 2011
- "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> Apr 12 2011
- Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Apr 12 2011
- dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> Apr 12 2011
- Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Apr 12 2011
- dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> Apr 12 2011
This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism, now that Jacob has submitted a pull request for std.net.isemail and GSoC proposals aren't taking up most of the community's attention. I suggest one additional week of review, since the module has had some pretty significant review already, with a week of voting after. If significant changes are requested and agreed to by me, votes can be contingent on the changes being made before committing std.parallelism to Phobos. Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this. Code: https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/blob/master/parallelism.d Docs: http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
Apr 11 2011
dsimcha Wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism,
I like your module. I suggest to put it into a std.experimental.parallelism Phobos module in the next DMD release. Bye, bearophile
Apr 11 2011
Russel Winder <russel russel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 19:01 -0400, bearophile wrote:dsimcha Wrote: =20This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for=20 std.parallelism,
I like your module. I suggest to put it into a std.experimental.paralleli=
Uuurrr... excuse my ignorance of previous process, but isn't this about voting std.parallelism into Phobos? This is a binary question, either it goes in as std.parallelism or it doesn't. Putting things in as one package and then moving it seems like a sys admin and developer nightmare. Personally I see it as a "no contest" get it in and get it in now. But perhaps this will be taken as campaigning. Moral from C++0x, Java/JSR166, Go: get parallelism stuff into the language early, at the risk of having to issue bug fix releases. C++0x is only just getting threads after 30 years. Fortunately asynchronous functional call made it is, as did futures, but sadly not closures. Java has had threads since its arrival on the general scene 16 years ago, but now people know this is infrastructure not stuff for applications programmers. JSR166 was intended to do something about this, but some bits got into Java 5, some into Java 6, some will go into Java 7 but only in Java 8 will the really good stuff get in. Goodness knows which version of closures will go in when. This is turning into a 15 year program to get things into a language that should have been in from 10 years after the language hit the streets. Go put its model of parallelism in from the outset. OK there have been a few bugs that had to be fixed, but they took the research work of 30 years in other languages and put it straight in. D has some concurrency tools and a form of closure (albeit a bit awkward to create them), but it needs more parallelism tools now before the ships of C++ and Go sail off with the native code developer community. C++0x with TBB and stuff that Anthony Williams is creating as part of Just::Thread Pro to do actors and dataflow, also C++CSP2 if you want CSP, could easily lead to a resurgence of C++ despite the mess that is its templates stuff. (People who still think C is a great applications development language are beyond saving ;-)=20 So to answer the question directly: putting this package in as std.experimental.parallelism would be a way of halting progress of D take up. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 12 2011
dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism, now that Jacob has submitted a pull request for std.net.isemail and GSoC proposals aren't taking up most of the community's attention. I suggest one additional week of review, since the module has had some pretty significant review already, with a week of voting after. If significant changes are requested and agreed to by me, votes can be contingent on the changes being made before committing std.parallelism to Phobos. Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this. Code: https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/blob/master/parallelism.d Docs: http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
Extremely important functionality, and a solid piece of work. It's already a higher standard than most of Phobos. I think it's pretty obvious that this should be included.
Apr 12 2011
What he said.=20 Sent from my iPhone On Apr 12, 2011, at 12:53 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.pa=
nd GSoC proposals aren't taking up most of the community's attention. I sug= gest one additional week of review, since the module has had some pretty sig= nificant review already, with a week of voting after. If significant change= s are requested and agreed to by me, votes can be contingent on the changes b= eing made before committing std.parallelism to Phobos.Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL=
Code: https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/blob/master/parallelism.d Docs: http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
Extremely important functionality, and a solid piece of work. It's already=
I think it's pretty obvious that this should be included. =20
Apr 12 2011
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:37:47 -0400, dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism [...] Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this.
I'd be happy to resume my duties as review manager. :) -Lars
Apr 12 2011
On 4/12/11 5:07 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:37:47 -0400, dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism [...] Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this.
I'd be happy to resume my duties as review manager. :) -Lars
Perfect. Please discuss with David an appropriate timeline and let's do this. Andrei
Apr 12 2011
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org)'s articleOn 4/12/11 5:07 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:37:47 -0400, dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism [...] Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this.
I'd be happy to resume my duties as review manager. :) -Lars
this. Andrei
Again, I suggest one more week of review, since this module has already been through a decent amount of review and refinement via the review process. (Again, thanks to those who have reviewed it, as your suggestions have led to major improvements, especially in the documentation. I'll include an acknowledgement to that effect when everything else is done.) Then, voting starts on April 19 and a final decision is made on April 26.
Apr 12 2011
On 2011-04-12 00:37, dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism, now that Jacob has submitted a pull request for std.net.isemail and GSoC proposals aren't taking up most of the community's attention. I suggest one additional week of review, since the module has had some pretty significant review already, with a week of voting after. If significant changes are requested and agreed to by me, votes can be contingent on the changes being made before committing std.parallelism to Phobos. Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this. Code: https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/blob/master/parallelism.d Docs: http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
There's a "main" function at the bottom of the module. Or is that wrapped in a version statement? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Apr 12 2011
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (doob me.com)'s articleOn 2011-04-12 00:37, dsimcha wrote:This message is to formally request a resumption of the review for std.parallelism, now that Jacob has submitted a pull request for std.net.isemail and GSoC proposals aren't taking up most of the community's attention. I suggest one additional week of review, since the module has had some pretty significant review already, with a week of voting after. If significant changes are requested and agreed to by me, votes can be contingent on the changes being made before committing std.parallelism to Phobos. Lars Kyllingstad is the review manager and Andrei is unofficially the BDFL of Phobos, so both please approve this. Code: https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/blob/master/parallelism.d Docs: http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
wrapped in a version statement?
Yeah, I sometimes put one in when I'm running the unit tests, and then forget to remove it. Rest assured, this will be removed before it's checked in.
Apr 12 2011