> Reader and writer is better. Yes, I compiled something in Occam-pi with
> KRoC if I remember well. Syntax is not very intuitive IMHO. ;-)
IMHO occam syntax is intuitive! I miss it for my everyday work, which it used
to be for 10 years. More languages use(d) ? and ! It's different
than C and Java, but then they don't have direct language support for concurrent
input and output, and so don't need any ? and ! in the same way. (Assuming that
was the main obstacle). One other thing: it's not always that "different"
or "not intuitive" is the same as "bad".
I have always wondered why a teacher "reads" a lecture in the English language.
Is she _inputting_ from the text to her own head or _outputting_ via her own
brain to the listeners?
"look at, interpret, and say out loud something that is written or printed
(Example: "The King will read the proclamation at noon")
http://www.onelook.com/?w=read&ls=a (Quick definitions (read))
In my understanding "say out load" is active outputting (write), not
inputting (read). So, the read/write pair; let the other's use it when ? and
! operators don't exist!
Nowadays Apple is making a glyph of an Apple. Fine! Some times in history
people "glyphed" exlamation and query. With only some operator overloading
to those, didn't Hoare at al do a good job at picking ! and ?
Med vennlig hilsen / sincerely
Øyvind Teig
Øyvind Teig
Senior utviklingsingeniør, M.Sc.
Autronica Fire and Security AS
A UTC Fire & Security Company
Tlf: +47 7358 2468 / Faks: +47 7358 2502 / Mob: +47 9596 1506
oyvind.teig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx / www.autronicafire.no
http://home.no.net/oyvteig/pub - Publications
Anne van Rossum <anne@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: owner-java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx
10.01.07 13:50
Please respond to anne
To: java-threads <java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: Re: JCSP - Initial Questions
Hi Larry, Neil,
Sorry Neil, I lost your message, but I agree with the quote beneath.
Reader and writer is better. Yes, I compiled something in Occam-pi with
KRoC if I remember well. Syntax is not very intuitive IMHO. ;-)
And to repeat my other post: "That channel endpoints are separate
entities is indeed useful. They are in other Java libraries modelled as
InputPipe and OutputPipe (JXTA), as SourceChannel and SinkChannel
(java.nio.channels), as Puttable and Takable (java.util.concurrent)."
Kind regards,
Anne
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 08:25 -0800, tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Neil and Anne,
>
> I know I'm a bit late, and maybe this is so obvious it's not worth
> mentioning, but...
>
> >> * The nomenclature of channel.in() and channel.out() is confusing.
> >> Channel.out() should be the endpoint of the channel, not the output of
> >> the component where a channel starts. If a channel is a first-class
> >> entity, it should be treated like that.
> >>
> > I know Peter (one of the authors) is aware of this confusion. We think
> > in a process-oriented manner, hence out() is from the perspective of the
> > process. reader() and writer() would have been better - and may yet be
> > used in future.
>
> The entire JCSP project is process-oriented primarily; the Java parts are
> there because of the necessity of running it over Java. Therefore to
> understand its "spirit" it would make sense to study a pure
> process-oriented language, e.g. occam - "occam 2 Reference Manual", Inmos,
> 1988 is a quick study, only 133 p long, including lots of intuitive
> examples. The relation to JCSP entities will be obvious.
>
> Larry Dickson
>