RE: concurrency research "hot" again?

["Tony Gore" <Tony@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ah

That explains the 40 minutes I spent stuck in an elevator in the
European Commission building in Brussels some years ago, along with
various people includign a Belgian professor who called the fire brigade
(and was banned from EC buildings as a result).

Tony Gore


 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-occam-com@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stephen Maudsley
Sent: 15 February 2007 08:25
Cc: 'occam list'
Subject: Re: concurrency research "hot" again?

Andrew Delin wrote:
> Larry,
>
> my opinion is that concurrency must be managed at both the app and the
OS level -- the latter because adding additional system resources means
applications will benefit from more processing capacity without
requiring reconfiguration. I believe that virtualisation has a role in
this, meaning that in future we will increase and decrease "available
CPU" dynamically. Also, the vast pile of "old apps" must be able to
benefit transparently from execution a parallel core, which requires an
OS approach to concurrency.
>
> I do believe that app programmers should have a grounding in CSP and
functional languages, both of which lead to clearer thinking on
parallel-capable platforms. And we need mainstream languages that do
better than leaving the programmer to struggle with ThreadCreate().
>
> I would like to see a comprehensive OS that works in a few kilobytes. 
> I recall a Unix-like thing that boots into 3mb, it is often used in 
> elevators and other embedded settings. Can't remember the name, but I 
> don't think it's enterprise class (eg security?)
>
>   
You ever been in an elevator that wasn't working due to a breach of
security?