Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?

[Martin Berger <M.Berger@doc.ic.ac.uk>]

Ulf Wigner wrote:

> Going back to Jon's observation that you cannot exploit
> multicore with event-based programming, I'm inclined to
> agree, even though I think that message-passing concurrency
> is quite suitable for making use of multiple cores (albeit
> addressing a wholly different problem from data parallelism).

As more and more core will be put on a single chip, most
cores will be communicating via a network on chip. Hence
message passing is unavoidable. And if it is unavoidable
then maybe we should have it all the way.

> When scaling up message-passing (or event-based) concurrency,
> you have to do one of two things:
> 
> 1) ensure that your code is stable in the face of timing
>    variations and message reordering
> 2) calculate the entire event/state matrix

That's right.

Martin