3 ms·
These kind of argument sounds so familiar. Decades ago, when people worked on supercomputer, hundreds of millions dollars thrown to "parallel compiler", "shared
by liuliu 17y ago
These kind of argument sounds so familiar. Decades ago, when people worked on supercomputer, hundreds of millions dollars thrown to "parallel compiler", "shared memory machine" which aimed to reduce the complexity of parallel computing for programmers. But, it just doesn't work. If a programmer cannot aware of the underlying architecture of your parallel machine, the performance will get heavily harmed. That's why there are threads, message-passing, NUMA today.
- omouse 17y agoYou know why it doesn't work? Because programmers are still mainly using C or C-derived languages.
- dkersten 17y agoTotally agree. For one, languages like Erlang, Haskell and Clojure already make concurrent programming reasonably approachable and second, if people were to switch to using proper dataflow languages* then parallelization is implicit and automagically done for the programmer. * What I really want is a proper dataflow/imperative hybrid that lets me choose the right tool for the job...