3 ms·
yes. That makes perfect sense... easy to write and understand is something completely different to correctness, robustness, scalability, etc. All those must be
by TickleSteve 8y ago
yes. That makes perfect sense...
easy to write and understand is something completely different to correctness, robustness, scalability, etc.
All those must be considered if you think you have 'solved' parallelism, but they are orthogonal to 'easy to understand'.
- devxpy 8y agoI don't think he meant it like that. You could easily interpret that as - Perfect _implies_ that it's easy to write and understand, but it's not the whole picture. It's just a feature that _he_ thinks is _crucial_ to it being perfect. You get my point right? Like sure, you could implemented a _perfect_, I don't know like gnome desktop in assembly language, but it wouldn't be easy to write and understand. He thinks it's essential that it should be easy to read and write for it to be perfect. Unfortunately, He's not with us now so can't even confirm :(
- TickleSteve 8y agoTrust me, he's an intelligent guy, he did not mean "perfect" as you're implying it. He is fully aware that he has not solved parallelism.
- devxpy 8y agoDoes "we have the answer" equal "solved"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGXJ9Jt3-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhGXJ9Jt3-A