Multy-core CPUs

Peter William Lount peter at smalltalk.org
Thu Oct 25 20:04:52 UTC 2007


Hi,

Jason Johnson wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
>   
>>  What are they?
>>     
>
> Here.  Again.  http://sixtyk.blogspot.com/2007/05/threading.html
>
>   

Thanks for the link.


>>  Sure, one only has to search the internet for "concurrency" and one sees a
>> wide range of problems and potential solutions. Look at the Little Book of
>> Semaphores for a breathtaking look at a few of the many possible solutions
>> to various problems. Open your eyes to the wider horizon.
>>     
>
> Open my eyes to the wider horizon of yesterday?  I've seen it.  It's
> complicated.  I prefer to look at tomorrow.
>   

Well you might create a simpler tomorrow or SOME PROBLEMS but not for 
many real world problems.


>>  I never said you stated that explicitly - I'd have to check all your
>> postings to find that out. It's implied by what you are saying in many of
>> your postings. At least that is the impression that I'm getting from your
>> writing. You've certainly not acknowledged the opposite.
>>     
>
> I really believe that over-all your intentions are good, but this
> seems downright dishonest.  Either that are you simply don't read what
> I write.  I have told you *every single time* you brought up this
> charge that I don't think it will solve all cases.
>
>   

Well I don't recall that, and it's hard enough keeping up with this 
thread and the other stuff going on. It just seems that you and some of 
the others are ignoring some of the more complex real problems with 
simplistic solutions. As Einstein said, simple but not simplistic. In 
terms of deep copy that means yes by all means a full deep copy is 
needed but to avoid being simplistic a partial deep copy with or without 
references is also required.


> Ok, we're getting no where with this.  I apologized to the list for
> what this thread has turned into, and I'll try to do a better job
> staying out of this sort of pointless "nu uh", "uh hu!", "nu uh!"
> discussions in the future.  (if I start it again just warn me!  It's a
> bit of a weakness of mine).
>   

I think this has been a very good discussion. It's uncovered some 
interesting ideas that are out there. It's also shown that the wider 
Smalltalk group is getting ready - maybe - to accept some of the 
transaction processing notions that I've been supporting for over 
fifteen years now.

Keep up the good work Jason.

All the best,

peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20071025/507509e0/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list