Well, I only have myself to blame for the complexity then. ;-)
There is no visible difference, but there is an invisible one--the visitor
functions are now potentially parallel so they must not access shared
variables casually. One choice is to use a channel, one is to use mutual
exclusion.
On
On Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:51:59 +0100 roger peppe wrote:
> On 8 October 2018 at 08:53, Rob Pike wrote:
> > Actually the original is a paper:
> > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Hoare78.pdf
> > The book came later and is substantially different although not
> > contradictory. Channels were not
I was wrong too. Though I’m now puzzled about the UCLA book. It’s in my
library. Will look.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:06 AM Rob Pike wrote:
> No, I was thinking of Occam but being wrong.
>
> -rob
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:52 PM roger peppe wrote:
>
>> On 8 October 2018 at 08:53, Rob Pike
No, I was thinking of Occam but being wrong.
-rob
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:52 PM roger peppe wrote:
> On 8 October 2018 at 08:53, Rob Pike wrote:
> > Actually the original is a paper:
> > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Hoare78.pdf
> > The book came later and is substantially different
On 8 October 2018 at 08:53, Rob Pike wrote:
> Actually the original is a paper:
> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Hoare78.pdf
> The book came later and is substantially different although not
> contradictory. Channels were not in the paper and without channels (such as
> in Occam) the
Not Per Brinch Hansen. He did monitors, which are just serialization. Tony
Hoare did CSP.
-rob
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 12:46 PM Michael Jones
wrote:
> The greatness of go parallelism is that it is almost invisible. This is
> the legacy of CSP, Per Brinch Hansen’s Communicating Sequential
The greatness of go parallelism is that it is almost invisible. This is the
legacy of CSP, Per Brinch Hansen’s Communicating Sequential Processes. It’s
not hard to understand.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 4:29 PM rob wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 11:40 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> >
> > I hope these comments
On 10/07/2018 11:40 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
I hope these comments help.
...Marvin
I'm a newbie at Go. These comments help me a lot. I appreciate all the
time these comments took.
But it will take a little longer for me to grok Michael Jones' parallel
code.
Thanks.
--
You received
...oh, and in case you wonder about count and size variation, home
directory trees are noisy...
celeste:since mtj$ since -v -d 1m ~
/Users/mtj/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome
/Users/mtj/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/Default/Application
Cache/Cache/data_1
impressively patient response!
choosing a serial vs concurrent approach matters too in terms of
performance.
celeste:tour4 mtj$ tour4 ~
Go walker [/Users/mtj]
walked 293426 files containing 512174988291 bytes in 4.895 seconds
walked 293426 files containing 512174988537 bytes in 4.918 seconds
[I've set reply-to to include you (per your reply-to) but to exclude me; I
prefer to read my list mail on the list rather than in my personal inbox.]
* rob solomon [181006 15:17]:
> I've been trying to do something simple like this, but I'm not interested in
> following symlinks. Here I just am
I've been trying to do something simple like this, but I'm not
interested in following symlinks. Here I just am interested in summing
all subdirectories from my start directory. But I'm not geting
consistent sums, especially if I start from my home directory.
I guess I'm not handling
12 matches
Mail list logo
