Why so little parallelism?
|
From: Richard on 2 Nov 2006 11:22 [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] "BDH" <bhauth(a)gmail.com> spake the secret code <1162459967.123352.61140(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> thusly: >> >Maybe I'm biased - I hate Java. >> >> That's like saying you think procedural programming sucks because you >> hate Pascal. > >No, it's like saying you think procedural programming sucks, but >concede maybe you really just hate Pascal. Well other than an opinion about one language, you haven't refuted anything about object oriented programming. No matter which way you try to state it, its a stupid and baseless argument. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
From: jacko on 2 Nov 2006 13:41 BDH wrote: > > |> The core of that is pretty much obvious. But the slow things can be > > |> made more parallel. > > > > Sigh. There are at least the following classes of problem: > > ... > > > Programs where it is KNOWN to be infeasible > > What examples of these do you like? 10 print "hello" : goto 10 ? > > That is true, but the parallelism issue has little to do with registers, > > and Backus was NOT talking primarily about parallelism as it is now > > understood in that remark, but about the 'memory wall'. > > More of a data transfer wall. Alright, I have my plan and all, but how > would you deal with this? yes how does implicitly serial code get mapped to distributed registers? > > The parallelism issue is about the language, yes, but it is about how > > to express algorithms without introducing non-fundamental serialisation. > > They are conceptually slightly different issues. obviously i think some kind of parrallel language would have fully parallel execution, and serial dependancy would have to be explicitly indicated. on (var) { // only to be done on var write. ... } > OK, what is graph theory missing that's hard to fix? don't know. wouldn't the ideal language look a bit like a spreadsheet, with each cell having formula, whose evaluation is triggered by any value cell it depends on being written? cheers. p.s. i have not used much apl, but am a registered J user, but to be honest, forth is my current usage.
From: Del Cecchi on 2 Nov 2006 14:28 BDH wrote: > I am enthusiastic over humanity's extraordinary and sometimes very > timely ingenuities. If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are > gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat may come along and > make a fortuitous life preserver. This is not to say, though, that the > best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I > think we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting > yesterday's fortuitous contrivings as constituting the only means for > solving a given problem.?- R. Buckminster Fuller > Unfortunately neither you nor mr fuller have come up with superior solutions for many of these problems. Domes haven't replaced rectilinear frame construction, and alternatives haven't replaced von neumann. -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn?t necessarily represent IBM?s positions, strategies or opinions.?
From: Eugene Miya on 2 Nov 2006 13:33 Boy, I'm going to have to trace this thread back. In article <4quv6lFp0bl4U1(a)individual.net>, Del Cecchi <cecchinospam(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >BDH wrote: >> I am enthusiastic over humanity's extraordinary and sometimes very >> timely ingenuities. If you are in a shipwreck and all the boats are >> gone, a piano top buoyant enough to keep you afloat may come along and >> make a fortuitous life preserver. This is not to say, though, that the >> best way to design a life preserver is in the form of a piano top. I >> think we are clinging to a great many piano tops in accepting >> yesterday's fortuitous contrivings as constituting the only means for >> solving a given problem.?- R. Buckminster Fuller >> >Unfortunately neither you nor mr fuller have come up with superior >solutions for many of these problems. Domes haven't replaced >rectilinear frame construction, and alternatives haven't replaced von >neumann. Not only that. Stewart Brand recanted his support for domes in his smart buildings book. This is not to say that they don't use uses like radomes. And it was once useful "largest dome in Livermore" to find a future officemate's house. Boy what a time to leave my RSA data frobb at home.... No access to my quote database for what Brand said. --
From: Eugene Miya on 2 Nov 2006 13:42
eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) spake the secret code no secrets <45491e94$1(a)darkstar> thusly: >>As a start, you should read Amdahl's (law) paper. It's barely 3 pages >>long. Amdahl himself has given permission and it's the comp.parallel >>FAQ panel on the 20th at the very end. It goes out monthly. In article <eib7hd$hhk$1(a)news.xmission.com>, Richard <> wrote: >Also: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law> Whereas this is not a bad description (I appreciate what Jimmy has done with wikipedia to its limits), it's not the original work. Amdahl has practically no math in his paper (I left out the one graph). The math was done later back Jack Worlton of LASL (now LANL). Amusing. A Brit (wonder if he's one of Nick's friends) mostly wrote this Wikipedia page. This page requires a little work. It's got minor details that can stand polishing. No time. Well, I did one thing. -- |