On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:30:49AM -0700, David MacQuigg wrote: > Good observation. I wasn't thinking of parallel computing at all. I > can see a need for something very different in this realm. I'll stick > with my original bet, however, if we limit our consideration to > "mainstream" languages. I will bet that languages like Fortress, > designed to deal with concurrency, will be used only by specialists, and > that the majority just needing to process payroll records or program a > website, will stick with whatever evolves from Python.
I agree. When speed isn't important, there is no reason to welcome the added complexity of concurrent programming. > That's not to say the 1% is unimportant. Here we will find brilliant > programmers working on sophisticated techniques to break large problems > into pieces that can be executed concurrently by hundreds of processors. > Each problem is very different, and we may find programs for circuit > simulation using very different techniques than programs for weather > prediction. These programs will be run in an environment controlled by > Python. The circuit designer or atmospheric scientist will not be > concerned about the details of concurrency, as long as the result is fast > and accurate. Interesting observation. Python would still be useful in a world with concurrent tools as a glue language at worst. _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig