From: Phil Clayton <phil.clayton@lineone.net>
Subject: Re: Concurrency always is non-deterministic?
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2012-02-13T18:34:47-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3e808f44-9571-4277-aa43-bc0f5fc0cf2b@a15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1xf56jbutoa3$.sd93docj14m0$.dlg@40tude.net
On Feb 13, 6:04 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> The author seems to think that concurrent = time sharing.
That's how I read it too.
> It is not.
I agree. I take the view that concurrency can be either time-slicing
or running in parallel (using multiple processing cores). Either way,
it's still non-deterministic so the author's point about needing
synchronization still stands.
Phil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-14 2:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-13 17:41 Concurrency always is non-deterministic? Long Hoàng Đình
2012-02-13 18:04 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2012-02-13 19:38 ` Simon Wright
2012-02-13 19:56 ` Bill Findlay
2012-02-14 1:13 ` Simon Wright
2012-02-14 11:29 ` John B. Matthews
2012-02-14 2:34 ` Phil Clayton [this message]
2012-02-13 18:06 ` Georg Bauhaus
2012-02-13 19:11 ` Niklas Holsti
2012-02-13 22:10 ` Brian Drummond
2012-02-14 2:18 ` Phil Clayton
2012-02-14 10:05 ` Erich
2012-02-14 15:00 ` Phil Clayton
2012-02-14 18:23 ` Jeffrey Carter
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox