Re: Yet another article on the need for better parallel.

[tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx]

What's interesting, Kevin, is that after your article admits that the
80s-era Transputer makes modern attempts at dual core look like a
"nematode", it goes on to repeat the canard of insuperable difficulty ---

"The real issue with parallelism, however, is software and while many say
parallelised software is a good idea, there is also a generalised
acknowledgement that it is probably too difficult in practice to make it
successful or even widely implemented across the board in typical business
systems."

It doesn't occur to the author that, if people were doing
super-parallelism in the 1980s, it might be because they knew an easy way
to do it. If we can get THIS message across, we'll make real progress.

Larry Dickson

> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/09/15/future_parallel/
>
> Not saying anything new really, and quite short.  But it does at least
> acknowledge the Transputer as a high point.  May be of intrest.
>
> Kevin Chalmers
> Research Student
> School of Computing
> Napier University
>
> This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read,
> copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the
> permission of the sender.
> It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments
> are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not
> accept liability for any loss
> or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for
> errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure
> medium. Email entering the
> University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the
> University.
>
>