[erlang-questions] Re: Classification of concurrency patterns

[Angel Alvarez]

El Miércoles, 19 de Mayo de 2010 02:39:42 Robert Virding escribió:
> On 18 May 2010 11:46, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > There's no point in expressing the concurrency in an algorithm if the
> > hardware can't do it anyway
> > (or perhaps there is?)
> 
> Yes, there is. If the algorithm is best expressed in a concurrent way
> then you should definitely do so, even if the hardware can't do it.
> You are saying what you mean. Or it can be a hint to the
> implementation, for example using pmap instead of map means that you
> feel that the arguments can be evaluated in parallel, it is then up to
> the implementation/hardware to do it if possible.

Again the subttle diference "concurrent vs parallel" where people should think about.

Always you should able to express concurrency (tasks that begin and end while other tasks are still running)
without regard whether the hardware will serialize them, intermix them or run them in parallel.

Where the ability to run things in parallel is the key to performance the ability to express things concurrently
is the key to design complex systems.

I think exposing tasks to the programming enviroment is more important that having constructs that can (not always) 
run in parallel.



> 
> Robert
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org mailing list.
> See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED
> 
> 



-- 
No imprima este correo si no es necesario. El medio ambiente está en nuestras manos.
__________________________________________

Clist UAH a.k.a Angel
__________________________________________
Nunca pude estudiar derecho... (El jorobado de Notredame).