RE: The world needs process-orientation

["Andrew Delin" <Andrew.Delin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This has been a fantastic discussion - I'm very glad there's such
interest and belief in POP.

I agree with the view that we need more languages that express
process-oriented ideas naturally; I've found libraries that extend C++
and Java to be rather clumsy.

I would be interested to collaborate in creating a small, experimental,
Occam for .Net -- if anyone would like to collaborate, please get in
touch.

This would be a small subset of Occam/KROC constructs, for demonstration
purposes of the power of POP. If we could compile Occam DLLs to include
in mixed language .Net projects, this could be a powerful demonstration.
The idea is that we can achieve a separation of concerns and Occam-style
code can deal with the parallel aspects. We might achieve some mindshare
if the language interoperates with convention blobs of code.

Any takers?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Allan McInnes
Sent: Tuesday, 13 June 2006 2:20 AM
To: tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx; java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: The world needs process-orientation

Quoting tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > So apart from making good business using COP
>
> Is there a good reason for using this acronym? Everyone else seems to 
> have settled on "process-oriented programming". Unanimity, if 
> possible, helps in being heard.

The term "concurrency-oriented programming" (or COP) has been widely
used in the Erlang community for a number of years. The term has since
gained currency outside of the Erlang community, and I have seen it used
in several different forums to refer to lightweight process-based
approaches in general.

Allan
--
Allan McInnes <amcinnes@xxxxxxxxxx>
PhD Candidate
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering Utah State University