From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ADDR_WS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a9bbfb8cd49f1a51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:39:18 +0200 From: Erlo Haugen <"elh whirlpool terma spot com"> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada?? References: <42d64dde$0$64794$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <42e0a2a6$0$36943$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk> Organization: TDC Totalloesninger NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.163.1.105 X-Trace: 1122017958 dread12.news.tele.dk 36943 193.163.1.105:4181 X-Complaints-To: abuse@post.tele.dk Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3725 Date: 2005-07-22T09:39:18+02:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Erlo Haugen wrote: > >> http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm >> >> I think so. > > > I don't think so. I mean - the article is neutral with regard to Ada, > and not only because it does not mention "Ada" at all. > > The article is about the fact that future hardware platforms will tend > to have more and more parallelism, no matter whether this will be used > by software or not. Actually, this happens already, even on popular > desktop platforms. > The problem that you seem to forget about is that all the factors that > are used today for choosing the language (some factors are technical, > some not, but that does not matter) will be still in use tomorrow. For > example, if some project chooses Java, it does so independent of whether > the program will be running on Hyper Threading processor or not - so the > increased concurrency capabilities of the target platform has no impact > on the language chosen for implementation. In general, programmers will > not rush to change their languages just because the multicore CPUs will > become prevalent. This article is therefore about raising the awareness > of programmers that concurrency is the only way to benefit from new > hardware, which is very far from saying that people should move to > another language - be it Ada or whatever else. And since the author is > involved in the C++ standardization process, I'd rather read this > article as a "good-source" prediction that more effort will be put into > standardizing the relation between C++ and multithreading (which already > happens). > > The *only* way it could be in favour of Ada is to reuse the experience > of the Ada community when defining threading for C++ (I'm not sure > whether this will be the case or not), but I don't think that this kind > of "favour" is what you really mean. ;) > > What i meant to say was that Ada already has the features needed to take advantage of this increasing parallelism, be it hyperthreading og multiple processors, and doing it in a portable way. Threading possibilities are already supplied by most OSes, but by incorporating it as a language standard, it becomes portable. -- Erlo ----- The statements and opinions are mine and does not neccesarily reflect those of my employers