Is concurrency hard?
Mon Nov 7 11:30:43 CET 2005
Matthias Lang writes:
> Marthin Laubscher writes:
> > "We" made two fundamental choices (called breakthroughs at the
> > time) that went directly against reality and consequently still
> > cripple almost every aspect of computing today.
> > a) We represent things with digital approximations.
> > This is not the time and place to wonder about where analogue computing
> > could have been today if all the money that was spent on digital
> > was spent on the analogue branch.
> When you say something is 'analog', do you mean that the parameters of
> the system all occupy a continuous space? Or do you mean something
A little of both I suppose. If we were as highly evolved analogue
"computing"-wise as we are in the digital sense, what would concepts such as
"system" and "parameter" have meant? If we assume that we mean by "system"
and "parameter" something akin to what cybernetics, complexity theory and
such describe, then in all likelihood the answer is "Yes, and that's not the
end of it, and hardly the beginning". But in a fleeting remark sort of way,
yes, I mean with analogue that every value in the system occupy a continuous
space, also that it doesn't necessarily reside in a register or a memory
position from where it is copied around and addressed by yet another digital
It's as tough and mind-bending to think about these things while having a
digital worldview, as it is to understand the language of dolphins.
More information about the erlang-questions