Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Lew wrote:
Interesting distinction. Would it be fair to compare concurrent
programming to the bricks used to build the parallel program's edifice?
Way too much of a fine distinction. While they are in fact different,
the point of concurrent programming is to structure programs as a group
of computations, which can be executed in parallel (however that might
actually be done depending on how many processors there are).
No. Concurrent programming is about interleaving computations in order to
reduce latency. Nothing to do with parallelism.
Jon, I do concurrent programming all the time, as do most of my peers.
Way down on the list of why we do it is the reduction of latency.
What is higher on the list?
Correctness.
I'm not being facetious. I write applications that run on application
servers, and from time to time I have had to write various special
purpose servers. This kind of programming is all about managing
concurrent execution of computations. The overarching concern is
reliability and correct function. For many corporate situations, even
with hundreds of users, the actual load at any instant is low enough
that the various servers involved are nowhere close to being stressed
out - performance is a secondary issue.
AHS
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
