From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2006-05-28T23:06:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Threads...

------=_Part_312216_19298675.1148825204225
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Edward Lee makes many interesting points, none more than in the section
"Coordination Languages" near the bottom of the paper. He points out that,
essentially due to inertia, many new models have been proposed but not
adopted. (Side point: I *really* like Erlang, which Lee mentions at several
points. What a beautiful design.) To this point, I'd add the following:
necessity drives uptake. Some of the approaches to the scalable-design
problem will emerge into common use simply because they have to, and the
leaders who take the risks will be well rewarded. The problem is becoming
urgent because of the rise of multicore hardware. What's really nice about
all this is that we will soon have the tools to build applications that
haven't even been imagined yet.

I'll add another hopefully provocative point (wrapped in an hommage to
Fortran): I don't know what the coordination language will look like, but I
do know what it will be named: Ruby!

>>>I'll chime in and say that my opinion lines in this direction:
> http://rubyurl.com/DJB
> I'm not sure a 'coordination language' is the right direction, but I
> do think that threads are a deeply flawed model.
> An earlier issue of Computer made some strong arguments in favor of
> transactions, as well.
>
>

------=_Part_312216_19298675.1148825204225--