On 07 Jan 2005 13:48:41 -0800, Paul Rubin <> wrote:
> aurora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is
>> Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
>> [http://www.gotw.ca/public
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 11:52:03 -0800, aurora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the author's idea is many of today's main stream technology (like
> OO) did not come about suddenly but has cumulated years of research before
> becoming widely used. A lot of these ideas may not work or does not seems
>
"Peter Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Roth wrote:
I have yet to write a multi-thread program for performance reasons.
If we include in the set of things covered by the term
"performance" not only throughput, but also latency, then
I suspect you actually ha
A lot of these ideas may not work or does not seems
to matter much today. But in 10 years we might be really glad that we have
tried.
aurora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is
Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency i
John Roth wrote:
I have yet to write a multi-thread program for performance reasons.
If we include in the set of things covered by the term
"performance" not only throughput, but also latency, then
I suspect you actually have written some multithreaded programs
for "performance" reasons.
*I* certai
"Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| Jp> How often do you run 4 processes that are all bottlenecked on
CPU?
|
| In scientific computing I suspect this happens rather frequently.
I think he was trying to say more
Quoth Skip Montanaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| Jp> How often do you run 4 processes that are all bottlenecked on CPU?
|
| In scientific computing I suspect this happens rather frequently.
I think he was trying to say more or less the same thing - responding
to "(IBM mainframes) ... All those sy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michele deleted an attribution:
>>
>> So I've always had it in
>> the back of my mind that languages that can easily support massive
>> (especially automatic) parallelization will have their day in the sun,
>> at least someday.
>
>and th
I remember a _few_ year ago when all specialists (Intel's) included
agreed that the 100MHZ barrier would never be passed - so, at least, we
did get free lunch for a couple of years :-)
I also must add that in my 17 years of realtime/embedded programming,
the problem usually was not the CPU speed -
Jp> How often do you run 4 processes that are all bottlenecked on CPU?
In scientific computing I suspect this happens rather frequently.
"More is never enough." -- Bob Saltzman
Skip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:22:30 GMT, Lee Harr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that the
> >> continous CPU performance gain we've seen is finally over. And that future
> >> gain would primary be in the area of software concurrency taking
>> [http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that the
>> continous CPU performance gain we've seen is finally over. And that future
>> gain would primary be in the area of software concurrency taking advantage
>> hyperthreading and multicore architectures.
>>
> Well, yes.
Steve Horsley wrote:
But my understanding is that the current Python VM is single-threaded
internally,
so even if the program creates multiple threads, just one core will be
dividing
its time between those "threads".
Not really.
The CPython interpreter does have a thing called the 'Global Interpr
> So I've always had it in
> the back of my mind that languages that can easily support massive
> (especially automatic) parallelization will have their day in the
sun,
> at least someday.
and the language of the future will be called ... FORTRAN!
:-)
(joking, but it is the only language I know
aurora wrote:
Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is Over: A
Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
[http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that the
continous CPU performance gain we've seen is finally over.
"aurora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello!
Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is Over: A
Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
[http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argu
Jack Diederich wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:35:46PM -0800, aurora wrote:
Hello!
Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is Over: A
Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
[http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that the
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:35:46PM -0800, aurora wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is Over: A
> Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
> [http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues t
aurora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is
> Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
> [http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that
> the continous CPU performanc
Hello!
Just gone though an article via Slashdot titled "The Free Lunch Is Over: A
Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
[http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm]. It argues that the
continous CPU performance gain we've seen is finally over. And that futu
20 matches
Mail list logo
