On Thu, March 30, 2017 1:56 am, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > On 29/03/17 22:30, fredvs wrote: > >> @Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) >> Perfect, I have now all the arguments to defend the "Dinosaur >> Threading"choice. >> Thanks. >> > > I'd second Charlie's point, and add that a very small change to a > system's layout, e.g. a DIMM on a NUMA node going dodgy and being excluded > at boot, can have a drastic effect if process or interrupt affinity has > been locked down inadvisedly. > > Another thing to take into account is that when many people mention > parallelisation they're thinking of something like OpenMP, which in > practice is built on top of threads and processes and obviously introduces > substantial overhead. It's good for large jobs carefully designed, > particularly on very large datasets. > > Some languages were designed with at least some measure of > parallelisation in mind. I'd highlight in particular APL,
What about Erlang.. Errrrrr But I have not so much interest in dynamic typed languages so have done little research on it. Been meaning to experiment with APL or learn more about it too. Those languages that have special symbols or require a special keyboard I am sure turn lots of people off. This email could go into fpc other i suppose _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
