4 ms·
Your second point is moot. Even in a multi threaded single machine program you can load state and have it changed by another thread. That's bad design and not a
by mav3rick 6y ago
Your second point is moot. Even in a multi threaded single machine program you can load state and have it changed by another thread. That's bad design and not a distributed system characteristic.
- omginternets 6y ago>Even in a multi threaded single machine Multiprocessors are distributed systems. (See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26093556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26093556)
- mav3rick 6y ago2 threads can run on 1 core (without HT) sequentially and this problem can still exist. More commonly if you don't have the right locking.
- omginternets 6y agoYes, and from this we can conclude that single-core processors are distributed systems too! It's counter-intuitive from an architectural (i.e. teleological) perspective, but it makes perfect sense when you approach it from a suitable level of analysis (intentionality).
- mav3rick 6y agoIt doesn't because memory is shared, clock is shared. Some of the tougher challenges in DS don't reside in this situation.
- omginternets 6y ago>It doesn't because memory is shared, clock is shared. You're arguing your point using the definition that I argue is insufficient. We're running around in circles. >Some of the tougher challenges in DS don't reside in this situation. Yes, and others still do. We can definitely agree on the fact that it's an easier variant of DS.