[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AW: The world needs process-orientation
- To: eric.verhulst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: AW: The world needs process-orientation
- From: tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Kerridge, Jon'" <j.kerridge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Tony Gore'" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Koehne Kai'" <kai.koehne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Andrew Delin'" <andrew.delin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, torben.hoffmann@xxxxxxxxxxxx, amcinnes@xxxxxxxxxx, occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx, java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:14:36 +0100
- Envelope-to: ats1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <001f01c690b4$6b0bdb50$1f7ba8c0@D2C7JZ1J>
- References: <16126.96.36.199.5.1150394598.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxx> <001f01c690b4$6b0bdb50$1f7ba8c0@D2C7JZ1J>
- Sender: owner-java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.6
> Dear All,
> I am just wondering. I posted a mail with attached documents on
> (our CSP-like look-alike), but saw no reaction on it until now.
> Was this mail not received (e.g. too big for the mailing list server) or
> it not considered as relevant for the topic.
> Feedback and review is welcome.
> Best regards,
> Eric Verhulst
Sorry about that, Eric... I just revisited your message and the 3 big
attachments were there just fine. I guess I was a little stunned by the
discussion in the body of the email, assumed the attachments would be
humongous, and put them aside for later...
Well, I looked at it, and it sure looks like a Transputer with 256
priority levels... The thing I thought, after skimming your 60-page
document, was, "Is this implemented on accessible hardware? If so, can we
mount an occam or occam-like language on it, together with booting and
scripting capabilities, so that we get a COMPLETELY CAPABLE
power-on-to-power-off instance of what I call the resource-oriented
paradigm in my white paper?" My paper proposes making the complete
instance of this paradigm out of DOS and legacy Transputers with occam,
but the principle would be the same.
I think the trouble with RTOS is that everyone takes it as fenced into a
reservation, i.e. a single program running on dedicated hardware, only
variable by version updates. What's needed is a "DOS" (i.e. full richness
of a scriptable command line plus the total control of the metal offered
by an RTOS) plus the total parallelism offered by Transputer processes,
with the parallelism controlled not by a fixed ".PGM" file a la Inmos
toolset but by parallel scripting capability. The dynamic nature of this
remains completely robust as long as you restrict it to a single
"heritage" (which I called the "wild" heritage when I did a working model
of this over DOS in 1996).
It'll take off if you can boot it off a floppy on a standard PC... Just a
few standard DOS-like services to emulate.