On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:05PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote: > > > > It is slightly depressing to think that the situation has not really > > changed since EWD wrote this in 1975. It will take some young > > whippersnapper of a Dijkstra or Hoare or Strachey or Iverson or Backus > > to find the critical insight that will make reasoning about parallel > > algorithm no more difficult than sequential ones. > > Is the human thought process parallel?
No. But to give you an example of why that shouldn't matter I would like to note that the human thought is, in my opinion, finite. Yet, we have developed very nice and efficient tools for comprehending and reasoning about infinity. > The most efficient is to have tools that match the way our brains work > (or not...). I'm not convinced our brains are "parallel" (at least mines > are not). I disagree on philosophical grounds ;-) It's been one of the major engineering follies to always approach design from a "just follow the nature" standpoint. No wonder that before the Wright brothers everybody thought the best way to fly is to flap some kind of wings. Thanks, Roman. P.S. I guess, we are getting way off topic here.
