so what exactly is const supposed to mean?

[David Medlock]

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