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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,16594902ce57591b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Multitasking and containers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <ek6bqd$prc$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
	 <b62ajtddi0xt.5azckp3k6y3u.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ek6hsv$t1o$1@cernne03.cern.ch>	 <143yx0dos45nx.159wpxvfevtt8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <u8xi1hwk5.fsf@earthlink.net>	 <bFtah.295754$1i1.172141@attbi_s72>
 <1164623427.5986.11.camel@localhost> <YiGah.160827$aJ.83689@attbi_s21>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:57:39 +0100
Message-ID: <ae3hg39t8xah.1ebrzzc2a0mgk.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:57:36 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 14559e41.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=McM;<GU[fR3;]cDoEWD6A4McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR1gUcjd<3m<;2CmSNYALciO9[6LHn;2LCV>[<mhadbfdU;Pi0GN]VO^G2bG<4QO\Qh><
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7708
Date: 2006-11-27T19:57:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:41:00 GMT, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>> 
>> But "parallel systems require delicate handmade work" is probably
>> not good advice at all, because (a) parallel systems operate in parallel
>> and there isn't a sharing issue in the first place, no protection is
>> needed. (b) When systems start communicating, and if it were true
>> that concurrency requires delicate handmade work, why then use a
>> language like Ada? The delicacies of the mechanisms behind tasks
>> and shared protected objects are hidden in Ada RTSs. Therefore, if
>> parallel systems do require delicate handmade work, the language
>> designers should abandon Ada tasks and protected objects, because
>> obviously they cannot meet the requirements of parallel systems.
> 
> I guess we have different interpretations of "delicate handmade work". I 
> took it simply to mean custom implementations tailored to the specific 
> project (such as a container that does not need protection for reads). I 
> guess only Kazakov can tell us for sure.

Actually, you did it better than me. Thanks.

I also agree with your point about premature optimization. It is a common
disease, which costs much work and many bad designs, which in the end turn
neither efficient nor clean. I suffer it as well, this in a human nature of
many programmers.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de