>>30
It sounds like you'd be perfectly set with C and OpenCL, and I'm not sure what language you even want. You seem to want features and then claim that the features are a step in the wrong direction. If you want complete control over how everything works, then stick with C and OpenCL. I think it would be more productive to specify a high level specification of what you want and how it can be computed, and let a compiler create an optimal way of managing everything for you. This wont be easy for every application, and ultimately you'd sometimes have to use straight OpenCL and C to get the best performance, but there is probably something that can induce a decent model for most cases. Although even then, not every problem can be efficiently solved with a highly parallel algorithm. You wont necessarily be able to compete with an alternative implementation running on a multicore CPU, where more synchronization methods are possible. And then there are other forms of parallel computing, like many machines networked over a lan. The OpenCL model of shared memory becomes less relevant, and tools like Erlang start to look more suitable.
Marxism
Oh it's
you again.