>>1 no compelling programming paradigms for general parallel systems have yet emerged
That's simply not true. Concurrent algorithmic skeletons layered on top of task-oriented parallelism is compelling.
In fact, Flow appears to ripping off FastFlow, Cilk, TBB, and MPP's architectures and merely moving functionality from libraries into the language itself.
Solving problems with new language syntax is retarded when libraries are good enough. In fact, I would go so far as to consider it harmful/wasteful.
Just like how language dabbling is considered wasteful.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 14:56
>>1 Flow also draws from category theory Category theory Zionist mathematics created to enslave the goyim to their Jewish masters
NOPE!
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 15:18
>THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF FLOW:
Sounds like some religion. May I keep my beliefs in Agile and TDD?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-30 15:27
>>5
Now that you mention it ... Flow is not just a single language, but a compiler platform that many language frontends can target and that will be include backends for most parallel computing platforms.
did remind me of a post I once read, written by a Catholic relating how a "church for all belief" was explained to her by a parishioner (she was rather cynical about it).
The harmfulness of the concept of current value can be justified somewhat esoterically by reference to Einstein's principle of the relativity of simultaneity: if there is greater than zero distance between independent observers, communication between them takes greater than zero time, and therefore there is no such thing as an absolute clock or an absolute concept of "now" that is valid in all reference frames. Why should we expect to be able to get the value of a variable "now" in parallel programming without unexpected results?
I really feel like I'm being dicked around here.
Why should we expect to be able to get the value of a variable "now" in parallel programming without unexpected results?
The different cores in a computer aren't usually more than a few millimeters apart.
>>10
Unless you are running on a true multi-CPU configuration. But you can still sync them up fairly nicely. Cache coherency, hello? OP is a faggot.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 3:12
>>10
Modern multi-core CPU architectures have multiple levels of cache. The Level 3 cache is usually shared between all cores on a die, but each core has it's own L1 and L2 caches. It's possible and in fact highly probable for the cores to see different values of a shared memory location in RAM due to the nature of how the memory controller works. This is the case with x86, Power, and ARM.
AMD Bulldozer also has shared L1 and L2 cache per each 2-core Bulldozer module, so it actually is something closer to an actual NUMA (non-uniform memory architecture) design, and programmers can write code to take advantage of this by keeping specific threads running on the same module for optimal memory access patterns.
Anyway, if you're a programmer and you know nothing of cache coherency, I highly suggest you learn about it. It's extremely important for performance. Optimizing for cache coherency can yield huge performance gains that are as high as factors of a couple magnitudes.
Allow me to introduce a superior language:
anic http://code.google.com/p/anic/
Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 3:23
Yet another statically typed language? Arent they obsoleted by LISP?
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 3:24
Category theory is the study of the mappings (morphisms) between mathematical objects.
And everybody else went and chased static. And they've been doing it like crazy. And they've, in my opinion, reached the theoretical bounds of what they can deliver, and it has FAILED. These static type systems, they're WRONG. Wrong in the sense that when you try to do something, and they say: No, category theory doesn't allow that, because it's not elegant... Hey man: who's wrong? The person who's trying to write the program, or the type system?
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 3:25
>>14
ALGOL 60 inspired many languages that followed it. C. A. R. Hoare remarked: "Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors."[8] The Scheme programming language, a variant of Lisp that adopted the block structure and lexical scope of ALGOL, also adopted the wording "Revised Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme" for its standards documents in homage to ALGOL.[9]
>>15
Person writing the program is wrong. Programs are more efficient when no processing time is spent figuring out what sort . Don't believe me, try running some untyped Lisp program on an embedded processor compared to a C program. The C program should use less resources.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 7:09
>>21
Static typing hogs a lot of brain resources. Syntax is complex (Syntax of typed languages tends to be more complicated than that of untyped languages), and together with static typing it forces me to spend more resources on dealing with language than with dealing with the problem.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 7:19
Static typing supports programming process by enforcing discipline. There is no screwing around. It is like proof a mathematical theorem, full of fasting, praying and compassion under the all seeing eye of the abbot, punishing you for every mistake. Obtaining benefit from the type system involves attention on the part of the programmer and willingness to make good use of the abstract facilities provided by the language. A complex program that encodes all its data structures as lists will not get much help from the compiler. One of the coolest features of Lisp that I found when I started learning it coming from C++ was that I could put anything into Lisp containers. And I don't want going back.
>>22
I prototype complex logic in strong dynamically typed languages (mostly Python) before transferring the logic into the statically typed language.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 7:44
>>24
Why Python? It's deficiently full OOP and you cant use it for low level coding, as you can use Lisp. Also, getting `unbound variable` errors during runtime is fucking annoying. Even worse than dangling pointer from C/C++.
Also, It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structures. -- Alan Perlis
>>16
ALGOL is a noble language, but its descendants took really the wrong part of it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 9:23
>>31 noble language
Nobility justify their right by the will of God. How do you know, Algol is God choosen?
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 10:49
>>32
ALGOL 60 inspired many languages that followed it. C. A. R. Hoare remarked: "Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors."
>>37
Sorry, but I fail to see how a wiki-page makes this cocksucker more important. Wikipedia is a big gargabe pile, that has a page for every crappy rock-band and rap-nigger out there.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 12:23
>>38
Its not the presence of wiki page, but what written in it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-01 13:59
>>39
Just another cocksucker from M$ research, working on next C#. Why should we care?
>>36
Having an uneducated opinion on a topic isn't worth much compared with a recognised subject authority. Authorities on a subject have proven themselves by attaining a certain level of knowledge or even imparting new knowledge. This specific authority is a pioneer in the subject of CS and thus, deserves respect in his opinions on CS matters.
Computer so-called ``science'' actually has a lot in common with magic. Now sage your posts.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-02 18:02
>>22
You're really complaining about static, _explicitly_-typed languages. Static, _implicitly_-typed languages don't have the syntax problems you mention.
Also the fact that static typing makes the developer sit around and think instead of hacking away is a feature, not a bug. If this is not appropriate to what you're doing then by all means use a dynamically typed language.
>>52
I don't typically use reddit. Do you think reddit invented _those_ *kinds* of convention? I'm not interested in playing markup oneupmanship, just adding some light emphasis.
In addition I'd argue that the difference between 'implicit typing' vs 'type inference' and 'explicit typing' vs 'manifest typing' (which appears in your link) is a matter of terminology. I don't see why you'd want to spend energy discussing it.
>>51 Static, _implicitly_-typed languages don't have the syntax problems you mention.
Nope. My quote was about Haskell and the likes. The "Syntax of typed languages tends to be more complicated" part is directly from TAPL, meaning that even Haskell apologists admit that it's complicated, compared to LISP.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-03 3:30
Also, C++0x has type inference and still it's complicate as hell (requires 10-20 years to master).
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-03 3:33
Implicit typing is guessing what presents you should get, assuming the present to be something you like anyway.