Re: parallelism

[Ralf Stephan]

glen: 
> So, basically, we can either go *up* and put an extra layer
> between the programmer and the machine, or we can go *down*
> and futz with the compilation/translation machinery.  But,
> if we don't do one or the other, what we log and when we
> log it will be ad-hoc at best.

I see the benefit of the message syntax but this would require
radical steps away from the C heritage for people accustomed to
it through Java/Obj-C but hey, it's time.  I think it would help 
to have an accelerated version of the [myActivity execute...] or
the setter methods like #pseudodefine XYZ:=A  self.setXYZ(A)
but I can offer no compiler experience nor any educated opinion on
maintenance cost here.

So, as I understand it, in exchange for writing to a new, yet to be
defined, swarm programming style (probably in both Java/Obj-C) one 
would get in exchange memory usage and profiling info, as well as
can swarm itself better decide where to put things in parallel (which
could be visualized too).


ralf
-- 
http://me.in-berlin.de/~rws/


                  ==================================
   Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
   esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
   please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
   body of the message.
                  ==================================