[vox] Who thinks Java is cool?

[Brian Lavender]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:00:54AM -0700, Norm Matloff wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:59:50PM -0700, Bill Broadley wrote:
> > On 06/15/2011 11:41 PM, Norm Matloff wrote:
> 
> > > It's generally believed in the parallel
> > > processing community that the shared-memory paradigm makes for clearer
> > > code than does message-passing, and I personally agree.
>  
> > That's an interesting assertion, possibly better discussed in person.
> 
> Well, there's fact and there's taste.
> 
> I think it's fair to say that it is a fact that shared-memory code is
> simpler, i.e. takes up fewer lines of source code.
> 
> But is simpler clearer?  That is absolutely a matter of taste.
> 

But isn't there the ability to analyze for correctness the following
non-functional requirements. I mean real parallel problems.

boundedness, deadlock, safeness and liveness

It seems to me that one can use a PetriNet analyze the state space for
correctness. Yet, the state space grows incredibly fast. The PIPE tool
is a tool that does just that.
http://pipe2.sourceforge.net/

Erlang has low thread creation overhead and immutability of variables,
so it appears that it is easier to analyze. It seems Erlang uses 
messages, has low thread creation overhead, and variables are immutable,
a model to analyze.

brian
-- 
Brian Lavender
http://www.brie.com/brian/

"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other
way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies."

Professor C. A. R. Hoare
The 1980 Turing award lecture