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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,590b710e61b9ddf8
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.135.231 with SMTP id pv7mr10345178pbb.8.1329156402564;
        Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 wr5ni20923pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:06:18 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Concurrency always is non-deterministic?
References: <3721724.784.1329154891821.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcwt9>
In-Reply-To: <3721724.784.1329154891821.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcwt9>
Message-ID: <4f39511a$0$7613$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Feb 2012 19:06:18 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 60e0df1c.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=\8VP3Gca0aQaoembcbF;DQic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ<`=YMgDjhgRVlijeZK>]HQnc\616M64>ZLh>_cHTX3j]UoSUPFQRXOP
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-13T19:06:18+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13.02.12 18:41, Long Hoàng Đình wrote:
> The author of this post said so. If Ada were non-deterministic at concurrency, I guess it couldn't be real-time, right?
> 
> http://ghcmutterings.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/parallelism-concurrency/
> 
> Please let me know your opinions about that post.

As an exercise in journalism, it's great. It excels at lifting
definitions into the realm of vagueness, phrasing as if it didn't.
Not saying that this is the author's intention, though.

Once vague enough, the article has the effect of spurring a discussion
that cannot bear fruit until readers have spent time consulting
precise sources---from doing which the article keeps them away,
quite effectively.

Enough said ;-)