Jeff M. wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:08 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon, I do concurrent programming all the time, as do most of my peers.
Way down on the list of why we do it is the reduction of latency.
What is higher on the list?
Correctness.
IMO, that
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
No. Concurrent programming is about interleaving computations in order
to reduce latency. Nothing to do with parallelism.
Jon, I do concurrent programming all the time, as do most of my peers
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Lew wrote:
Interesting distinction. Would it be fair to compare concurrent
programming to the bricks used to build the parallel program's edifice?
Way too much of a fine distinction. While they are in
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Lew wrote:
Interesting distinction. Would it be fair to compare concurrent
programming to the bricks used to build the parallel program's edifice?
Way too much of a fine distinction. While they are in fact different,
the point of concu
Lew wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
I agree entirely but my statements were about parallelism and not
concurrency. Parallel and concurrent programming have wildly different
characteristics and solutions. I don't believe shared mutable state is
overly problematic in the context of parallelism. Indeed, I
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
I see no problem with mutable shared state.
In which case, Jon, you're in a small minority.
No. Most programmers still care about performance and performance means
mutable state.
Quite apart from performance and mutable sta
Jon Harrop wrote:
Roedy Green wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:15:00 + (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :
Even for problems where it appears trivial, there can be hidden
issues, like false cache coherency communication where no actual
sharing is taking pla
Xah Lee wrote:
over the past 15 years, every few months i got emails from authors for
permission request of materials on my website.
today, while searching for my name on google, i found a result in
books.google.com . Out of curiosity, i searched my name in
books.google.com, and here's a hilario
"Xah Lee" wrote in message
news:a3ee929d-0b9b-4bbf-9cf3-5dcc6ddbc...@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[ SNIP ]
This page is a short collection of online communities that banned me,
in a way that i don't consider just. It illustrates the political
nature among the tech geeking males.
[ SNIP ]
"Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bugbear wrote:
>> Er. How about
>>
>> public class test {
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>> String a = "a string";
>> String b = "another one";
>> StringBuffer c = a + b;
>
> String c (etc.),
"Timofei Shatrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>
>>Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>> So, a simple code like this in normal languages:
>
>>> becomes in Java:
11 matches
Mail list logo
