on-Jones where he seemed to suggest that this newsgroup might be a
helpful place to answer such questions. Thanks for any insights -- it
would be especially useful if I can point to some kind of proof one
way or another.
--
Bruce Eckel
___
Haskell-Cafe ma
s
corrupted, by backing up to the uncorrupted state. The effect is the same;
only one thread can access the shared state at a time.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Sebastian Sylvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Bruce Eckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
s
>> the same effect on each node.
>
> Ah, okay. I think that's a real edge case, and probably not how most
> use MPI. I've used both threads and MPI; MPI, while cumbersome, never
> gave me any hard-to-debug deadlock problems.
>
> --
> Aaron Denney
> ->&l
> Multicore support is already "supported" in Python, if you use
> multiprocessing, instead of multithreading.
This is one of the reasons for my other question on this list, about
whether you can solve all problems using multiple isolated processes
with message passing.
he
> most popular /implementation/ of Python sacrifies this for
> performance, it has nothing to do with the language itself.
Actually, no. Neither Python nor Ruby can utilize more than a single
processor using threads. The only way to use more than one processor
is with proc
l, but the tasks
> it is suited for fall more along the lines of traditional scripting of
> a large working Java application. I wouldn't want to see a large app
> written in Jython or JRuby.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Arnar Birgisson <[EMAIL PROTEC
