Open standards and development tools are needed to accelerate the transition to a multicore future, according to minds at this week's Multicore Expo in Santa Clara, California. As Markus Levy, president of the Multicore Association, put it: "Hardware's easy." Brian Carlson, Texas Instrument's Open Multimedia Application Platform …
Marcus Levy's Got it Ass Backwards
You don't create a programming model to support an existing hardware model. It should be the other way around. First you come up with a correct programming model; then you devise the hardware to support the model. Sheesh.
The Multicore Association is supposed to lead and suggest new ways to get us out the crisis. Kissing Intel's or AMD's ass is not the way to go. It does not matter if you depend on them for financial support. The main leaders of the multicore processor industry have let it be known that they want to support the multithreading model of parallelism. The only problem is that multithreading is the cause of the crisis, not the solution. Marcus Levy needs to wake the hell up and be a real leader. There are enough ass kissers in the business already. Go to the links below for enlightenment.
How to Solve the Parallel Programming Crisis:
Encouraging Mediocrity at the Multicore Association:
Aren't you that crackpot that thinks that motion in spacetime is impossible, and that the Bible explains how neural nets should be constructed?
Ah yes ...
How's COSA going? I noticed you've got a "non-algorithmic" implementation of the quicksort algorithm now. That must have taken some work!
BTW, did you ever get the timecube working or was that someone else?
Well, fancy. You again.
Anyone offered you the $10 million for your idea yet? What's that - they haven't?
Ever bothered to read & understand the paper on threads you keep recommending (which undermines your position, not that you'd know as you haven't read it).
Ever got anything working?
Put up or shut up louis.
Programming Languages Considered Harmful
Programming languages are the CLIs of development tools. They're inherently linear, because *languages* are inherently linear -- we don't know how to read any other way. This was fine as long as computers relied on single-thread, in-step CPUs, but it's increasingly untenable today.
I started programming in the days of the ZX81, when BASIC still had line numbers and assembly languages were real, furry assembly languages designed by people who had bothered to look up "mnemonic" in a dictionary first.
I've seen people hype procedural programming, modular programming, OOP, functional programming and more. Yet those programming 'paradigms' are just attempts at nailing structural and organisational UI features onto a written language without any thought for whether this is the right place for it. It's 2009 and we're still using software development tools designed in the days when hard drives were called "Winchester Disks", punched cards and paper tape were still in use, graphics were monochrome and blocky, and the Internet was still wearing nappies and crying for its DARPA.
Sure, those tools have gained WIMP GUIs to help us place buttons and list-boxes, but look under the hood and you see the same old dumb, flat, text files and archaic, linear programming languages.
Programming languages have had their day. They're not the solution. They are the *problem*.
I feel myself already becoming exasperated and preparing to respond[*] to your up-the-garden-path-with-a-herring assertions.
[*] In pictures, natch.
internet was still wearing nappies and crying for its DARPA.
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- That Microsoft-Nokia merger you've been predicting? It's no go