Its really interesting to see that the early work on Dataflow architectures, some 30 years ago is starting to appear in conversations like this. Relating the computational paths of individual values is convenient for our brains, but convoluted for hardware which has become focused on parallelization.
I am still firmly committed to totally ordered execution for languages which depict such relationships with code structure.
But when I was working with some of the AT&T EMSP investigators in college in the '80s, I was hoping that we would eventually get to nothing but Dataflow based programming where complex objects were considered single values with hardware support for them instead of hardware support for only words or pages.
Right now the hardware and the software systems are struggling for a unifying concept which reaches beyond the current "memory" concepts expressed in each. We struggle with very different viewpoints on what exactly a value is and exactly how to manage the view that the software needs vs the view that the hardware provides.
Instruction level management of details which are actually storage attributes (volatile, shared etc) grates pretty hard against the software concepts.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 4, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Hans Boehm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Concurrency-interest mailing list
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|