std.parallelism: Final review

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/18/11 3:55 PM, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Lars T. Kyllingstad (public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet)'s article
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 21:05:39 +0000, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>> David Simcha has made a proposal for an std.parallelism module to be
>>> included in Phobos.  We now begin the formal review process.
>>>
>>> The code repository and documentation can be found here:
>>>
>>>    https://github.com/dsimcha/std.parallelism/wiki
>>>    http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_parallelism.html
>> I would like to remind everyone that there is now only one week left of
>> the std.parallelism review period.  If you have any comments, please
>> speak now, so that David has time to make the changes.
>> I realise that the module has been through several review cycles already,
>> and that it is already in active use (by me, among others), so there
>> probably won't be any big issues.  However, if it gets voted into Phobos,
>> that's it -- it will be an official part of the D standard library.  So
>> start nitpicking, folks!
>> The voting will start next Friday, 25 March, and last for a week, until 1
>> April.
>> -Lars
>
> It's kinda interesting--I don't know at all where this lib stands.  The deafening
> silence for the past week makes me think one of two things is true:
>
> 1.  std.parallelism solves a problem that's too niche for 90% of D users, or
>
> 2.  It's already been through so many rounds of discussion in various places
> (informally with friends, then on the Phobos list, then on this NG) that there
> really is nothing left to nitpick.
>
> I have no idea which of these is true.

Probably a weighted average of the two. If I were to venture a guess I'd 
ascribe more weight to 1. This is partly because I'm also receiving 
relatively little feedback on the concurrency chapter in TDPL. Also the 
general pattern on many such discussion groups is that the amount of 
traffic on a given topic is inversely correlated with its complexity.

FWIW a review is on my todo list.

Anyway, I'm glad we have gotten the terminology (concurrency and 
parallelism) so nicely. See 
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/g6k0p/parallelism_is_not_concurrency/


Andrei