so what exactly is const supposed to mean?

[kris]

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


Yes, it does sounds very familiar -- to take full advantage of specific 
hardware you may need to step away from the 'norm'. Whatever that 'norm' 
may be. No surprise then, that it pays to keep an open mind?

You won't hear any argument from me regarding the typical multithreading 
"paradigm" ... and there are most certainly more effective methods in 
one manner or another ... there have been for 30 years ... *shrug*

If you intend to go on a crusade, to change the face of multithreading 
as we currently know and "love" it, I'll sign right up :D

But, again, the state of immutability is *not* married to multithreading 
-- it just happens to be particularly useful there too :p