Re: std.parallelism: Naming?
Dmitry Olshansky Wrote: On 16.04.2011 22:39, dsimcha wrote: I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism. The name is catchy, but perhaps too general. std.parallelism currently targets SMP parallelism. In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too. These might belong in different modules. Then again, std.smp or std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy. SIMD would probably just be array ops and stuff. Distributed message passing would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff. Please comment. I'm inclined to go with std.parallelism, the name is so cute :). On the serious side of it, I think SIMDs really belong to compiler internals and std.intrinsics. And any message passing should most likely go into std.concurency, even though that lives some scenarios somewhat on the edge of two (parallelism). I'd vote for std.parallel.smp and std.parallel.simd. But Phobos does not support deep nested package names, which is good. Otherwise the naming would be a hell on earth just like Java or Tango.
std.parallelism: Naming?
I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism. The name is catchy, but perhaps too general. std.parallelism currently targets SMP parallelism. In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too. These might belong in different modules. Then again, std.smp or std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy. SIMD would probably just be array ops and stuff. Distributed message passing would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff. Please comment.
Re: std.parallelism: Naming?
std.multicore? :p
Re: std.parallelism: Naming?
On 4/16/11 1:39 PM, dsimcha wrote: I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism. The name is catchy, but perhaps too general. std.parallelism currently targets SMP parallelism. In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too. These might belong in different modules. Then again, std.smp or std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy. SIMD would probably just be array ops and stuff. Distributed message passing would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff. Please comment. I don't mind std.parallelism one bit. Andrei
Re: std.parallelism: Naming?
On 16.04.2011 22:39, dsimcha wrote: I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism. The name is catchy, but perhaps too general. std.parallelism currently targets SMP parallelism. In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too. These might belong in different modules. Then again, std.smp or std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy. SIMD would probably just be array ops and stuff. Distributed message passing would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff. Please comment. I'm inclined to go with std.parallelism, the name is so cute :). On the serious side of it, I think SIMDs really belong to compiler internals and std.intrinsics. And any message passing should most likely go into std.concurency, even though that lives some scenarios somewhat on the edge of two (parallelism). -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: std.parallelism: Naming?
On 2011-04-16 14:39:23 -0400, dsimcha dsim...@yahoo.com said: I'm reconsidering the naming of std.parallelism. The name is catchy, but perhaps too general. std.parallelism currently targets SMP parallelism. In the future it would be nice for Phobos to target SIMD parallelism and distributed message passing parallelism, too. These might belong in different modules. Then again, std.smp or std.multicore or something just doesn't sound as catchy. SIMD would probably just be array ops and stuff. Distributed message passing would probably be absorbed by std.concurrency since the distinction between concurrency and parallelism isn't as obvious at this level and std.concurrency is already the home of message passing stuff. Please comment. While parallelism might be too general, isn't it true that it's too specific at the same time? I mean, the module includes a concurrent task system, some sugar to parallelize loops using tasks (foreach, map, reduce), and an async buffer implementation also based on tasks. Of those, which are truly parallelism? -- Michel Fortin michel.for...@michelf.com http://michelf.com/
