Re: [9fans] current state of thread programming

["Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>]

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 12:12:05PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > It is slightly depressing to think that the situation has not really
> > changed since EWD wrote this in 1975.  It will take some young
> > whippersnapper of a Dijkstra or Hoare or Strachey or Iverson or Backus
> > to find the critical insight that will make reasoning about parallel
> > algorithm no more difficult than sequential ones.
>
> Is the human thought process parallel?

No. But to give you an example of why that shouldn't matter I would
like to note that the human thought is, in my opinion, finite. Yet,
we have developed very nice and efficient tools for comprehending and
reasoning about infinity.

> The most efficient is to have tools that match the way our brains work
> (or not...). I'm not convinced our brains are "parallel" (at least mines
> are not).

I disagree on philosophical grounds ;-) It's been one of the major
engineering follies to always approach design from a "just follow
the nature" standpoint. No wonder that before the Wright brothers
everybody thought the best way to fly is to flap some kind of wings.

Thanks,
Roman.

P.S. I guess, we are getting way off topic here.