Paul Rubin wrote: > Robin Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> No I think they tried to just run a lot of processes at once and they >> got the 8 core by just substituting the two dual cores with two quads. > > Huh?! There are no quad core x86 cpu's as far as I know ;). >
well these guys seem to think there are, perhaps it's a joke http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6 >> I used occam back in the eighties with ibm pcs and these 4 transputer >> plugin cards. One of my bosses was Scottish MP and heavily into macro >> economic modelling (also an inmos supporter). I seem to remember doing >> chaotic gauss-seidel with parallel equation block solving, completely >> pointless as the politicos just ignored any apparent results. Back of >> the envelope is good enough for war and peace it seems. > > Heh :). OK, yeah, I remember Occam now, it used CSP (communicating > sequential processes) for concurrency if I remember, sort of like > Erlang? > >> Is suppose Alice isn't related to the "Alice Machine" which was a >> tagged pool processor of some kind. I recall it being delivered just >> when prolog and the like were going out of fashion and it never got >> faster than a z80 on a hot day. > > No I don't think so. It's Standard ML with some concurrency extensions > and a really nice toolkit: > > http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/alice/ > > Actually I'm not sure now whether it supports real multiprocessor > concurrency. It looks cool anyway. -- Robin Becker -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list