RE: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony PS/3 runs multi-core Linux)

[tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> "As a consequence, this kind of programming does not hit a
> complexity WALL."..
>
> WHAT kind of programming?...
>
> A.L.

Real component programming - programming in which each hardware or
software component has an independent existence and interacts with the
others with no side effects. This includes old-fashioned Transputer occam,
especially as practiced upon TRAMs and using processes, not drivers, to
manage peripherals. Everybody who worked with this in, say, automotive
radar and autonomous driving applications back in the 1990s used this fact
freely, easily doing what the bigdomed computer science authorities have
since declared to be impossible, namely, the reliable programming of
systems of open-ended complexity.

Larry Dickson

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:07 PM
>> To: oyvind.teig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx; Andrew Delin; Barry Cook; Matt
>> Jadud; owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx; Tony Gore; Chalmers, Kevin
>> Subject: RE: Transputer Development System, 2006? (aka Sony
>> PS/3 runs multi-core Linux)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Barry wrote:
>> >> I'm still trying to find the compelling reason that will
>> convince the
>> > world
>> >> to jump to parallel software
>>
>> I've got to try to do this for DARPA... My thoughts thus far:
>>
>> Transparency (not hiding the most important part of the
>> design, like interrupts and peripherals, in "drivers" just
>> because they involve real parallel hardware and function);
>>
>> Real components (things that you can hook together and get
>> genuinely predictable behavior that is the join of the
>> behavior of the parts -- I do NOT mean the things OO
>> laughably calls "components", but real pieces as found in an
>> automobile);
>>
>> As a consequence, this kind of programming does not hit a
>> complexity WALL. If done wrong, of course, it worsens the
>> complexity wall -- which is why it has the reputation it has.
>>
>> Larry Dickson
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>