True enough. But it's certainly more natural to think about than mutex-based
concurrency, automatic parallelization, etc. In the long term there may turn
out to be better models, but I don't know of one today.
Also, there are other goals for such a design than increasing computation
speed: d
Don Wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> >> Russel Winder wrote:
> >>> At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
> >>> is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
> >>> think sequentially and this affects their coding.
Distributed programming is essentially a bunch of little sequential
program that interact, which is basically how people cooperate in the
real world. I think that is by far the most intuitive of any
concurrent programming model, though it's still a significant
conceptual shift from the traditional
Sean Kelly wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Russel Winder wrote:
At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
think sequentially and this affects their coding. This means that
parallelism has to be ex
On 11-nov-10, at 20:10, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
[ . . . ]
Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to support lightweight
multithreading in D, that is, something like OpenMP
On 11-nov-10, at 20:41, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:16 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
[ . . . ]
on this I am not so sure, heterogeneous clusters are more difficult
to
program, and GPU & co are slowly becoming more and more general
purpose.
Being able to take advantage of tho
On 12-nov-10, at 00:29, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
[...]
Well, I am looking for an easy & efficient way to perform parallel
numerical calculations on our 4-8 core machines. With C++, that's
OpenMP (or GPGPU stuff using CUDA/OpenCL) for us now. Maybe
lightweight was the wrong word, what I meant is
On 11/12/2010 12:44 AM, dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Tobias Pfaff (nos...@spam.no)'s article
On 11/11/2010 08:10 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
[ . . . ]
Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
Speaking of which: Are
Gary Whatmore Wrote:
> %u Wrote:
>
> > Sean Kelly Wrote:
> >
> > > Walter Bright Wrote:
> > >
> > > > Russel Winder wrote:
> > > > > At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
> > > > > is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained
> > > > > t
%u Wrote:
> Sean Kelly Wrote:
>
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >
> > > Russel Winder wrote:
> > > > At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
> > > > is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
> > > > think sequentially and this affects their
== Quote from Tobias Pfaff (nos...@spam.no)'s article
> On 11/11/2010 08:10 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> >> Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
> >> Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to s
On 11/11/2010 08:10 PM, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
[ . . . ]
Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to support lightweight
multithreading in D, that is, something like OpenMP
Sean Kelly Wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
> > Russel Winder wrote:
> > > At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
> > > is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
> > > think sequentially and this affects their coding. This means that
>
Walter Bright Wrote:
> Russel Winder wrote:
> > At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
> > is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
> > think sequentially and this affects their coding. This means that
> > parallelism has to be expres
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:32:03 -0500, bearophile wrote:
> Walter:
>
>> Yup. I am bemused by the efforts put into analyzing loops so that they
>> can (by the compiler) be re-written into a higher level construct, and
>> then the higher level construct is compiled.
>>
>> It just is backwards what the c
Walter:
> Yup. I am bemused by the efforts put into analyzing loops so that they can
> (by
> the compiler) be re-written into a higher level construct, and then the
> higher
> level construct is compiled.
>
> It just is backwards what the compiler should be doing. The high level
> construct
Russel Winder wrote:
At the heart of all this is that programmers are taught that algorithm
is a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Programmers are trained to
think sequentially and this affects their coding. This means that
parallelism has to be expressed at a sufficiently high level that
retard Wrote:
> Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:41:56 +, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:16 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed wrote: [ . . . ]
> >> on this I am not so sure, heterogeneous clusters are more difficult to
> >> program, and GPU & co are slowly becoming more and more general
> >> purpo
Russel Winder wrote:
Agreed. My point was that in 1960s code people explicitly handled array
operations using do loops because they had to. Nowadays such code is
anathema to efficient execution. My complaint here is that people have
put effort into compiler technology instead of rewriting the
Having a D binding to OpenCL is probably going to be a good thing.
http://bitbucket.org/trass3r/cl4d/wiki/Home
On 11/11/2010 02:41 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Tobias Pfaff Wrote:
On 11/11/2010 03:24 AM, jfd wrote:
Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
it is still an area of active research
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:01:09 +, retard wrote:
> in CPUs the
> problems with programmability are slowing things down and many laptops
> are still dual-core despite multiple cores are more energy efficient
> than higher GHz and my home PC has 8 virtual cores in a single CPU.
At least it seems so t
Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:41:56 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:16 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed wrote: [ . . . ]
>> on this I am not so sure, heterogeneous clusters are more difficult to
>> program, and GPU & co are slowly becoming more and more general
>> purpose. Being able to take adva
Tobias Pfaff Wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 03:24 AM, jfd wrote:
> > Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about
> > Chapel
> > and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know
> > that
> > it is still an area of a
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 15:16 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
[ . . . ]
> on this I am not so sure, heterogeneous clusters are more difficult to
> program, and GPU & co are slowly becoming more and more general purpose.
> Being able to take advantage of those is useful, but I am not
> convinced they
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 18:24 +0100, Tobias Pfaff wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
> Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to support lightweight
> multithreading in D, that is, something like OpenMP ?
I'd hardly call OpenMP lightweight. I
On 11/11/2010 07:01 PM, Trass3r wrote:
Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to support lightweight
multithreading in D, that is, something like OpenMP ?
That would require compiler support for it.
Other than that there on
Unfortunately I only know about the standard stuff, OpenMP/OpenCL...
Speaking of which: Are there any attempts to support lightweight
multithreading in D, that is, something like OpenMP ?
That would require compiler support for it.
Other than that there only seems to be dsimcha's std.paralleli
On 11/11/2010 03:24 AM, jfd wrote:
Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
it is still an area of active research, and it is not yet (far from?) done,
but anyone have thoughts on
On 11-nov-10, at 15:16, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 11-nov-10, at 09:58, Russel Winder wrote:
MPI and all the SPMD approaches have a severely limited future, but I
bet the HPC codes are still using Fortran and MPI in 50 years time.
well whole array operations are a generalization of the SPMD
On 11-nov-10, at 15:16, Fawzi Mohamed wrote:
On 11-nov-10, at 09:58, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 02:24 +, jfd wrote:
Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something
about Chapel
and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting.
I know
On 11-nov-10, at 09:58, Russel Winder wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 02:24 +, jfd wrote:
Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something
about Chapel
and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting.
I know that
it is still an area of active research
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 02:24 +, jfd wrote:
> Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
> and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
> it is still an area of active research, and it is not yet (far from?) done,
>
== Quote from jfd (j...@nospam.com)'s article
> Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
> and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
> it is still an area of active research, and it is not yet (far from?) done
jfd:
> Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
> and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
> it is still an area of active research, and it is not yet (far from?) done,
> but anyone have thoughts on th
Any thoughts on parallel programming. I was looking at something about Chapel
and X10 languages etc. for parallelism, and it looks interesting. I know that
it is still an area of active research, and it is not yet (far from?) done,
but anyone have thoughts on this as future direction? Thank you.
36 matches
Mail list logo
