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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,292c095d622af1d0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr172827pbc.0.1336782802112;
        Fri, 11 May 2012 17:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 pr3ni15477pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: basic question on Ada tasks and running on different cores
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:33:15 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jokb4f$jvm$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: 
 <jo59po$s06$1@speranza.aioe.org><jo7u2o$c7c$1@speranza.aioe.org><30585369.219.1336470732142.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq3><jodnse$c29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <jof8lf$adu$1@munin.nbi.dk> <johu2d$9vj$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1336782799 20470 69.95.181.76 (12 May 2012 00:33:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 00:33:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-05-11T19:33:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"NatarovVI" <4KCheshireCat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:johu2d$9vj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...
> you just can not do it in imperative, intertwined with dependencies,
> lobotomized manner. in functional languages - you can.

Sure, but I'm skeptical that the vast majority of programmers can deal with 
any programming language that has the level of non-determinism needed to 
support useful parallelism. Functional programming languages make this 
worse, if anything.

Secondly, I'm skeptical that any language attempting fine-grained 
parallelism can ever perform anywhere near as well as a language using 
coarse parallelism (like Ada) and deterministic sequential semantics for the 
rest. Any parallelism requires scheduling overhead, and that overhead is 
going to be a lot higher for the fine-grained case, simply because there is 
a lot more of it needed (even if it is conceptually simpler).

There are of course special cases where neither issue is a problem or can be 
worked around, but for general purpose programming (especially embedded 
programming, which is pretty much the only *real* programming going on today 
:-), I don't see it happening. I wouldn't mind being wrong (even though it 
would mean the end of my programming career; I already know that I'm not 
productive in non-Ada languages - I cannot tolerate debugging very often).

                                         Randy.