On 10/31/07, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know what to add to above. I just said that we should use
> approaches which is best fit for architecture where our project(s)
> will run on.
> Of course what is best fit is arguable. But i don't think we should
> drop a shared memory model support when we building a system on top of
> architecture which haves it.

So what we can build must be constrained by an implementation detail
that's not even visible to us [1]?  If I had seen this on a C++ list I
wouldn't be so surprised but Smalltalk? :)

[1]  Obviously we don't because Intel and AMD don't handle shared
memory access the same way.  AMD already does something a bit closer
to message passing:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/rmma-numa.html