Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-05-28 12:52:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
What happens is that memory is less shared as cache hierarchies go
deeper. It was a great model when there were a couple of processors
hitting on the same memory because it was close to reality. Cache
hierarchies r
On 2009-05-30 13:00:14 -0400, Bartosz Milewski
said:
The complexity argument: My proposal looks complex because I am
dropping the whole comprehensive solution on the D community all at
once. I would be much wearier of the kind of creeping complexity
resulting from incremental ad-hoc solutio
On 2009-05-30 09:36:19 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
While message-passing might be useful for some applications, I have a
hard time seeing how it could work for others. Try split processing of
a 4 Gb array over 4 processors, or implement multi-threaded access to
an in-memory database. Me
For instance, the whole complexity of immutability hasn't been exposed yet.
What? I thought immutable was already quite complex.
Compare "unique" with "scope"--nobody knows the target semantics of "scope". It's a half-baked idea, but nobody's protesting.
Everyone knows that D is full of half
This is the missing second reply to Andrei. I'm posting parts of it because it
my help understand my position better.
I wouldn't dismiss Scala out of hand. The main threading model in Scala is
(library-supported) actor model. Isn't that what you're proposing for D? Except
that Scala has much be
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-05-28 12:52:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
What happens is that memory is less shared as cache hierarchies go
deeper. It was a great model when there were a couple of processors
hitting on the same memory because it was close to reality. Cache
hierarchies r
Jason House Wrote:
> > I see, you're a hardcore lockfree programmer. All you can expect from D is
> > Sequential Consistency--nothing fancy like C++ weak atomics. But that's for
> > the better.
>
> Far from it! I'm stumbling through in an attempt to teach myself the black
> art. I'm probably
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
I just think it's the wrong problem to work on.<
Beside multiprocessing (that I am ignorant to comment on still), I
can see other purposes for having a way to tell the type system that
it exists only one reference/pointer to mutable data and ways to
safel
On 2009-05-28 12:52:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
said:
What happens is that memory is less shared as cache hierarchies go
deeper. It was a great model when there were a couple of processors
hitting on the same memory because it was close to reality. Cache
hierarchies reveal the hard reality
Andrei Alexandrescu:
>I just think it's the wrong problem to work on.<
Beside multiprocessing (that I am ignorant to comment on still), I can see
other purposes for having a way to tell the type system that it exists only one
reference/pointer to mutable data and ways to safely change ownership
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
I don't think the item-by-item pingpong works well in the newsgroup.
Let's separate our discussion into separate threads. One
philosophical, about the future of concurrency. Another about the
immediate future of concurrency in D2. And a separate one about my
proposed syste
I don't think the item-by-item pingpong works well in the newsgroup. Let's
separate our discussion into separate threads. One philosophical, about the
future of concurrency. Another about the immediate future of concurrency in D2.
And a separate one about my proposed system in the parallel unive
Can you believe it? I was convinced that my response was lost because the
stupid news reader on Digital Mars web site returned an error (twice, hence two
posts). I diligently rewrote the riposte from scratch and tried to post it. It
flunked again! Now I'm not sure if it won't appear in the newsg
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
bearophile, el 29 de mayo a las 13:39 me escribiste:
Leandro Lucarella:
I agree. Maybe is just unjustified fear, but I see D2 being to concurrency
what C++ was to templates.
Sometimes you need lot of time to find what a simple implementation can
be. Often someone has
bearophile, el 29 de mayo a las 13:39 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella:
> > I agree. Maybe is just unjustified fear, but I see D2 being to concurrency
> > what C++ was to templates.
>
> Sometimes you need lot of time to find what a simple implementation can
> be. Often someone has to pay the pr
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Scala doesn't know what to do about threads.
That's my impression too, although Scala's support for actors leaves
D in the dust.
Scala actors are a library.
The trend I'm seeing is that functional languages are getting
increasing attention
Jason House Wrote:
> Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
>
> My hobby project is a multi-threaded game-playing AI. My current scheme uses
> a shared search tree using lockless updates with search results. Besides
> general ability to use your scheme for what I've already done, I'm also
> interested in how
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Scala doesn't know what to do about threads.
That's my impression too, although Scala's support for actors leaves D in the
dust.
> The trend I'm seeing is
> that functional languages are getting increasing attention, and that's
> exactly because they never share
Leandro Lucarella:
> I agree. Maybe is just unjustified fear, but I see D2 being to concurrency
> what C++ was to templates.
Sometimes you need lot of time to find what a simple implementation can be.
Often someone has to pay the price of being the first one to implement
something :-] This is bad
BCS wrote:
Reply to Andrei,
It follows that message passing is not only an attractive model
I'm thinking implementation not model. How is the message passing
implemented? OS system calls (probably on top of kernel level shared
memory)? user space shared memory? Special hardware? If you can'
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 28 de mayo a las 19:52 me escribiste:
> To me, adding concurrency capabilities to D is nothing like adding window
> dressing on top of whatever crap is there. Java and C++ are in trouble, and
> doing what they do doesn't strike me as a good bet. You're right about
> missi
Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:59:00 +0400, Tim Matthews
wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I would like D2 better if it was focussed on macros for example.
Can you elaborate on this? I think of the word macro as a C preprocessor
feature which is no longer needed in D.
I bel
BCS Wrote:
> Reply to Jason,
>
> > My hobby project is a multi-threaded game-playing AI. My current
> > scheme uses a shared search tree using lockless updates with search
> > results.
> >
>
> As in threaded min-max? Have you got anything working? I known from
> experience
> that this ones a
Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
> Jason House Wrote:
>
> > Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
> >
> > My hobby project is a multi-threaded game-playing AI. My current scheme
> > uses a shared search tree using lockless updates with search results.
> > Besides general ability to use your scheme for what I've alre
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is
where it's all going.
That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything
is indicating that things are moving *away* from shared memory.
Andrei
I un
Reply to Jason,
My hobby project is a multi-threaded game-playing AI. My current
scheme uses a shared search tree using lockless updates with search
results.
As in threaded min-max? Have you got anything working? I known from experience
that this ones a cast iron SOB.
http://arrayboundserr
Jason House Wrote:
> Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
>
> My hobby project is a multi-threaded game-playing AI. My current scheme uses
> a shared search tree using lockless updates with search results. Besides
> general ability to use your scheme for what I've already done, I'm also
> interested in how
== Quote from Leandro Lucarella (llu...@gmail.com)'s article
> Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
>
> > Maybe people are waiting for Walter to go through all the hard work of
> > implementing this stuff before complaining that it's crap and
> > proclaiming Walter should have done
Bartosz Milewski Wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
>
> > BCS, el 28 de mayo a las 15:57 me escribiste:
>
> >
> > Maybe, I'm just saying why I don't comment on D2 concurrency model. I find
> > it too complex for my needs (i.e. for what I know, I won't give my opinion
> > about things I don't kno
== Quote from Bartosz Milewski (bartosz-nos...@relisoft.com)'s article
> Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
> > BCS, el 28 de mayo a las 15:57 me escribiste:
> >
> > Maybe, I'm just saying why I don't comment on D2 concurrency model. I find
> > it too complex for my needs (i.e. for what I know, I won't give
Leandro Lucarella Wrote:
> BCS, el 28 de mayo a las 15:57 me escribiste:
>
> Maybe, I'm just saying why I don't comment on D2 concurrency model. I find
> it too complex for my needs (i.e. for what I know, I won't give my opinion
> about things I don't know/use).
>
Probably the majority of user
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Am I wrong in assuming that most languages use user mode (not kernel
>> mode) shared memory for inter thread communication?
>
> What happens is that memory is less shared as cache hierarchies go
> deeper. It was a great model when there were a
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Second, there is no regard to language integration. Bartosz says syntax
> doesn't matter and that he's flexible, but what that really means is
> that no attention has been paid to language integration. There is more
> to language integration than just syntax (and th
BCS, el 28 de mayo a las 15:57 me escribiste:
> Hello Leandro,
>
> >Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
> >>I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
> >>It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which
> >>keyword to use (e.g. manifest
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> BCS wrote:
> > Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
> > it's all going.
>
> That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything is
> indicating that things are moving *away* from shared memory.
>
> Andrei
I understan
On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:28 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:07:57 +0400, Robert Jacques
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:41 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:32:29 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
BCS wro
Reply to Andrei,
It follows that message passing is not only an attractive model
I'm thinking implementation not model. How is the message passing implemented?
OS system calls (probably on top of kernel level shared memory)? user space
shared memory? Special hardware? If you can't get #3, I'
On Thu, 28 May 2009 21:07:57 +0400, Robert Jacques wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:41 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:32:29 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threadin
On Thu, 28 May 2009 12:45:41 -0400, Denis Koroskin <2kor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:32:29 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
it's all going.
That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Ri
BCS wrote:
Reply to Andrei,
BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
it's all going.
That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything is
indicating that things are moving *away* from shared memory.
Andrei
I'm talking at the ASM l
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:32:29 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
>> it's all going.
>
> That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything is
> indicating that things are moving *away* from sh
Reply to Andrei,
BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
it's all going.
That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything is
indicating that things are moving *away* from shared memory.
Andrei
I'm talking at the ASM level (not th
BCS wrote:
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where
it's all going.
That is correct, just that it's 40 years late. Right now everything is
indicating that things are moving *away* from shared memory.
Andrei
Denis Koroskin:
> I believe he is talking about AST macros that are postponed until D3 because
> current focus has shifted to concurrency.<
I think shifting to concurrent programming is now the right choice, all other
modern languages do the same, because people have more and more cores sleeping
Hello Tim,
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I would like D2 better if it was focussed on macros for example.
Can you elaborate on this? I think of the word macro as a C
preprocessor feature which is no longer needed in D.
AST macros. Look up Walter et al's talk from the D conference
On Thu, 28 May 2009 19:59:00 +0400, Tim Matthews
wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>
>> I would like D2 better if it was focussed on macros for example.
>>
>
> Can you elaborate on this? I think of the word macro as a C preprocessor
> feature which is no longer needed in D.
I believe he is ta
Hello Leandro,
Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which
keyword to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence
about major design dec
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
I would like D2 better if it was focussed on macros for example.
Can you elaborate on this? I think of the word macro as a C preprocessor
feature which is no longer needed in D.
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword
to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major
de
Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
> I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
> It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword
> to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major
> design decisions like
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:45:42 -0400, Jason House
wrote:
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword
to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major
design decisions l
On Thu, 28 May 2009 08:45:42 -0400, Jason House
wrote:
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword
to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major
design decisions lik
Tim Matthews Wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
> > I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread. It's
> > amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword to use
> > (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major design
> > decisions like t
Jason House wrote:
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread. It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major design decisions like thread safety that defines new transitive
== Quote from grauzone (n...@example.net)'s article
> 1. Everyone agrees anyway, that emulating fork() is the best idea to
> deal with multithreading and synchronization.
> 2. We'll yet have to see how an implementation of the proposed design
> will work out. This means Walter has to implement it.
1. Everyone agrees anyway, that emulating fork() is the best idea to
deal with multithreading and synchronization.
2. We'll yet have to see how an implementation of the proposed design
will work out. This means Walter has to implement it. Reading blog
entries about it is almost a bigger waste of
On Thu, 28 May 2009 16:45:42 +0400, Jason House
wrote:
> I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
> It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword
> to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major
> design decis
I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread. It's
amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword to use
(e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major design
decisions like thread safety that defines new transitive states and a bunc
Jason House wrote:
Don't read into it. I took it as being more readable for non-D users. Angle brackets show up in C++ templates, Java generics, and C# generics. IMHO, <> is more recognizable, even for those that don't code in any of the languages mentioned. D's syntax is good, just not wide spre
Tim Matthews Wrote:
>
> This may seem slightly OT but in your blog "I will use syntax similar to
> that of the D programming language, but C++ and Java programmers
> shouldnt have problems following it."
>
>
> class MVar {
> private:
> T_msg;
> bool _full;
> public:
> // p
Tim Matthews wrote:
This may seem slightly OT but in your blog "I will use syntax similar to
that of the D programming language, but C++ and Java programmers
shouldn’t have problems following it."
class MVar {
private:
T_msg;
bool _full;
public:
// put: asynchronous (non-blo
This may seem slightly OT but in your blog "I will use syntax similar to
that of the D programming language, but C++ and Java programmers
shouldn’t have problems following it."
class MVar {
private:
T_msg;
bool _full;
public:
// put: asynchronous (non-blocking)
// Precond
You pretty much nailed it. The ownership scheme will be explained in more
detail in the next two installments, which are almost ready.
The article implies some level of flow analysis. Has Walter come around on this
topic?
As far as considering a variable moved, I believe the following should be
reasonable
Any if statement (or else clause) containing a move
Any switch statement containing a move for any case
Any fall-throu
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
> The post is back, rewritten and with some code teasers.
We've been teased for 6 months or more. I'm hoping the details will come
out quickly now!
Here's what I took away from the article:
* Goal is to have minimal code changes for single threaded code
* unique and le
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
The post is back, rewritten and with some code teasers.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8ngwn/racefree_multithreading_in_a_hypothetical_language/
Vote up!
Andrei
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
The post is back, rewritten and with some code teasers.
Has anyone reddit'ed it yet?
Andrei
The post is back, rewritten and with some code teasers.
Nick B Wrote:
> Hi
>
> It seems that Bartosz's latest post, dated April 26 th is missing from
> his blog.
>
> See :
>
> http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/
>
>
> Nick B.
Hi
It seems that Bartosz's latest post, dated April 26 th is missing from
his blog.
See :
http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/
Nick B.
69 matches
Mail list logo
