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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no 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 10.68.234.38 with SMTP id ub6mr6417648pbc.2.1337183701519;
        Wed, 16 May 2012 08:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni5707pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: NatarovVI <4KCheshireCat@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: basic question on Ada tasks and running on different cores
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:54:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <jp0ikh$b7q$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <jo59po$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$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jokb4f$jvm$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: TNf0rmM5b4cIzEdXORLLAg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT
	30dc37b master)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-05-16T15:54:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> 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.

and again - "parallelism is not concurrency"
if first-course CMU students can write correct parallel programs, 
everybody can. right abstractions is the key.
read Robert Harper experience at existentialtypes.wordpress.com

> 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).

you really need 100% of performance? maybe you like write in asm?))
seriously, SISAL and NESL can automatically get good part of data 
parallelism, no magic here. and this will be enought for most programmers.
(high order functions will be requirement here, extending data 
parallelism to operations on functions)

p.s. best scheduling is no scheduling...

> going on today :-), I don't see it happening. I wouldn't mind being

it will happen)) and Ada - not only language without need for debugging.
Standard ML also.