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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU!cragge From: cragge@AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: sent to info-ada-request by mistake Message-ID: <9005271544.AA08997@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 27 May 90 15:44:22 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: The following message was received at info-ada-request ------- Forwarded Message Return-Path: ??? Received: by ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA25069; Fri, 25 May 90 08:10:21 -0400 Received: from TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL by ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (5.61/2.5) id AA25063; Fri, 25 May 90 08:10:13 -0400 Date: Fri 25 May 90 08:11:11-EST From: CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL Subject: Ted & Ada To: info-ada-request@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu Message-Id: <12592493215.10.CAROZZONI@TOPS20.RADC.AF.MIL> >Why should any language BE concerned with parallelism? >Tasking is naturally an operating system feature; the idea of >tasking as a part of a language is one of the dumber ideas since >communism. Gee Ted, you better extend your feelings to the C/C++ community concerning AT&T's introduction of Concurrent C. >There's no right way to do it, as a careful reading of the 750 >little "problems" should make obvious to anybody. They did a good job with C/C++ - I bet they can do it again with Concurrent C. >In all truth, I can't really believe that any of the serious >people in this group who have read through any of that would >argue this point with me. I personally think AT&T is very serious - but time will tell. If enough people "spread the word" about the dangers of parallelism within a language, may be Concurrent C, Occam, and other such languages can be killed off before it's too late. - -- joe carozzoni - ------- ------- End of Forwarded Message