Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability

[NatarovVI <4KCheshireCat@gmail.com>]

> From which I quote:
> "Now I can hear you object, but isnt concurrency
>  required to implement parallelism?  Well, yes, it is, (...)! The point
>  is that concurrency is not relevant to parallelism, even if the
>  engineers who build our parallel computing platforms must deal with
>  concurrency."
> 
> Paraphrased: How can we parallel programmers rid us of the real work of
> implementing hardware and software for our parallel programs and
> delegate the not-so-entertaining programming and computer construction
> to "the concurrency engineers"?

this is just terminology. what deals with timings is named "concurrency".
it can be used in implementation for "parallelism" abstraction.
get the difference? parallelism is abstraction, concurrency used in one 
of it implementations (there exist implementations without concurrency,
like f.e. vectorisation for data-parallelism-only situation).

meanwhile, Harper talks about so-named deterministic parallelism. i think 
this kind of parallelism will be what most application programmers want 
use. programmers just want use "universal" runtime wich run their 
"parallel" program (with specified in it all possible parallelism) on 
_any_ modern computer, "efficiently enought".
such choice all programmers already done when select procedure languages 
(like Ada) over assembler.
now just time for next high-levelisation step, abstracting parallelism))

sure there will be niche for system programmers and runtime implementors,
dealing with concurrency. like as assembler programmers exist now.
but, sure again, they will be minority.

> Don't get me wrong. I rather like the idea of language-based model of
> [parallel] computation that assigns "costs to the steps of the program
> we actually write". I rather like that.
> It is roughly equivalent to my question about predictability.
> (Note: not determinism. Predictability of time, storage, and effects.)
> And it is an ages old dream.

"dreams come true"

>> FP <> Haskell!
>> i not sayed one word about monads or damned Haskell.
> OK. ML has reference types. (Why?) Again, if they some day arrive at a
> language-based solution that will allow the removal of reference types
> etc, and still allow precise considerations of efficiency of parallel
> sub-computations,
> and further processing of the results of sub-computations,
> in time, in the modern world, perfect!

why C have goto? legacy... interfacing with other world... etc.
references needed because "some tasks most effectively
solved with imperative solution". parallel solution for it
not found until now. that not means all algoritms must be such!
and references is not used by default.
and that not means that such imperative tasks can not be reformulated
to parallelisable tasks.

in the end, ML is old language. but until now good enought.
and lady Ada do not needs your guard from multyhead ML, knight))