so what exactly is const supposed to mean?

[David Medlock]

David Medlock wrote:

> kris wrote:
> 
>> David Medlock wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> But it's not at all clear what your messsage is, David. Are you 
>> speculating that D is currently too immature for immutability to be 
>> useful? Or, that the multithreading model should be re-evaluated? 
>> Asking only because I'm not sure what you're getting at overall?
>>
>>
> 
> Basically that multithreaded as a 'hold the computers hand' is a 
> semantic dead end street.  Sure it works in small cases, but for 
> programming in the large you hit Ahmdal's Law, among other issues.
> 
> No question some programmers can do it, but there are better methods imo.
> 
> Code-level multithreading won't have much(any?) effect on processors 
> such as the Cell from what I have read so far.
> 
> Look at that presentation: 500 Gigaflops of computing power on consumer 
> hardware.  It just requires you to follow its vectorized paradigm.
> 
> By comparison the first Cray had like 2 MegaFlops of crunching power.
> Looking at the Wiki entry for Seymour Cray, he notes that keeping the 
> computer 'fed' I/O data was the trick.
> 
> Sounds awfully familliar.
> 
> -Just my opinion, of course.
> DavidM


PS.  D has vector capabilities so I wouldn't rule it out at all.
(Though I don't know what Walter's long term strategy is here...)