From: Bob Gustafson <bobgus@...>
Date: 2006-07-21T03:35:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Beyond threads? Better concurrency methods?

I'm glad you mentioned Occam. I was going to suggest a look at the link;

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.transputer/browse_thread/thread/761899fe564cd4d8/cd5214b7f1cf2425?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4#cd5214b7f1cf2425

This is a little old. I'm glad that the hot bed of Occam programming 
(Kent) is still working with it.

Besides it's explicit parallelism, Occam's other claim to fame is its 
basis in Formal Methods. Many years ago, silicon chip designs were 
'derived' from Occam program descriptions. When INMOS was bought by EMI 
and then absorbed into STM, the idea of deriving silicon went silent. My 
hypothesis was that STM was using Occam ++ internally as its silver 
bullet design methodology. Complex chips need to work with a minimum of 
tweeks in the manufacturing process.

rmeenaks@olf.com wrote:

>M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>  
>
>>Anyhow, CSP is "old hat" -- this year's "silver bullet" is the
>>PI-Calculus, a close relative of Hoare's CSP and a direct descendant of
>>Milner's CCS. I like the PI-Calculus just as much as I liked CSP, Occam,
>>Concurrent Pascal, CCS, Linda/Rinda and all the other theoretical
>>computer science approaches. In my own field, performance engineering, I
>>like the CCS derivative, Jane Hillston's PEPA. But what are the guys
>>with the big bags of nickels buying?
>>    
>>
>
>
>You should take a look at Occam-PI
>(http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ofa/kroc/) which is a marriage of
>PI-Calculus and OCCAM...
>
>
>Ram
>
>  
>