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,b076e6315fd62dc5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr23960212pbc.5.1337623007504;
        Mon, 21 May 2012 10:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni21679pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 19:56:04 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability
References: <jodq5f$j5f$1@speranza.aioe.org> <johvef$cgg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1ir29foizbqv1.v9uuhpykjl3n.dlg@40tude.net> <joifa0$e9f$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <18ct9oamzq1u1$.wh6hj9mlqxna$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <jon8og$5o1$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4faf8700$0$6635$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <jp0fec$1hu$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4fb3eb94$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <jpdqsl$qeo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In-Reply-To: <jpdqsl$qeo$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Message-ID: <4fba81b4$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 May 2012 19:56:04 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b0fc8036.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=KMai`3DVSK=LNKYb?b>076McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;Of:2gZO=N1?nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=gaBh4DZoO;2
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-21T19:56:04+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21.05.12 18:35, NatarovVI wrote:

>  (there exist implementations without concurrency,
> like f.e. vectorisation for data-parallelism-only situation).

Harper's goal is more inclusive; he will, IIUC, ask for the cost,
in terms of O-notation, of vectorization, which is not free.

> now just time for next high-levelisation step, abstracting parallelism

U = 0?

> sure there will be niche for system programmers and runtime implementors,
> dealing with concurrency.

Do you have the facts to back this up?

> and lady Ada do not needs your guard from multyhead ML, knight

What?