Parallel processing and further use of output

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 12:46 +0000, John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> […]
> 
> Pretty much as expected. Locks are slow, shared accumulators 
> suck, much better to write to thread local and then merge.

Quite. Dataflow is where the parallel action is. (Except for those
writing concurrency and parallelism libraries) Anyone doing concurrency
and parallelism with shared memory multi-threading, locks,
synchronized, mutexes, etc. is doing it wrong. This has been known
since the 1970s, but the programming community got sidetracked by lack
of abstraction (*) for a couple of decades.


(*) I blame C, C++ and Java. And programmers who programmed before (or
worse, without) thinking.

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20150928/c168b8d6/attachment.sig>