3 ms·
I think Norvig and the author are wrong about "parallelism" requirement. I mean it's good to know what's out there, but you can't really understand it if you tr
by zzzcpan 10y ago
I think Norvig and the author are wrong about "parallelism" requirement. I mean it's good to know what's out there, but you can't really understand it if you try to learn it from a multithreading point of view. Fundamentals for it are part of distributed systems and this is where people should get into and learn things about ordering, consensus, asynchronous and synchronous systems, etc.
- eru 10y agoThere's of course also the distinction between parallel and concurrent.
- zzzcpan 10y agoYeah, they are mixing all kinds of things together, Go with Erlang and even throwing a GPU in there. These are all very different worlds and none of them teach you fundamentals. I remember how useless the parallel programming class was, I only started to understand the underlying ideas behind semaphores, mutexes and memory barriers long after I got into distributed systems.
- ww520 10y agoYes, their language parallelism recommendation is bit off. Parallelism is more about organizing data and algorithm than what a language can offer.