<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrei@erdani.com">andrei@erdani.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">Benjamin Shropshire wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Benjamin Shropshire wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
OTOH that is just another form of the CAS 2 vs CAS 3 problem. The system only works if you have the right abstractions.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What do you mean by CAS 2 and CAS 3?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem Kevin cited of their being 1 and 2 word CAS ops, but no 3 word CAS, and if their was a 3 word CAS, then there not being a 4 word CAS. My point being that you will end up always with some case being just out of reach.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The good news is that CAS is all we need. True, it's not easy...<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Andrei<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
dmd-concurrency mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:dmd-concurrency@puremagic.com" target="_blank">dmd-concurrency@puremagic.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-concurrency" target="_blank">http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-concurrency</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>I think there are two camps here. One is the academic / mathematical camp, that loves to tackle the "it's not easy but theory says it's possible." The second camp is the "what are the best practices?" camp that doesn't own a microscope but looks at trade-offs between known designs. Sort of the 'scientists' and the 'engineers'.<br>
<br>The scientists usually fall into the role of studying fluid dynamics with an eye toward discovering the trick to making the new and experimental but elusive frictionless pipe. The Engineers tend to study building codes and grunge through installing plumbing most of the time, with an eye toward becoming inventors or businessmen. Most of the industry ends up playing the 'engineer' role.<br>
<br>Personally I like tackling the "it's not easy" problems, or at least reading about them and pondering. But what I'd ideally want to make sure is that both camps have a language they can work with. That way, when the scientists discover the new breakthrough in fluid dynamics, it's more likely to be compatible with the toilets and dishwashers that everyone already has.<br>
<br>(Okay, I clearly need sleep.)<br><br>Kevin<br><br><br>