Re: Concurrent Sequential


"Traveler" <traveler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:vvvbi3p21rvv1h6ab2l9vs8n0gq183ea5p@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:59:02 -0400, Paul Tarvydas
<tarvydas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Traveler wrote:

The problem is that this approach to software construction would be
extremely slow because current CPUs are designed and optimized for the

Actually, we were doing something like this (if I understand your idea
correctly) on 8051's about a decade ago and it was competitive in speed
with C-like languages. For some applications, involving heavy interrupt
traffic (e.g. network protocols), our method was faster / more-responsive.

Project COSA:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm

I would be interested in your comparison with out method:

http://www.visualframeworksinc.com

For something similar, see also:

http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/

Paul, I agree with a lot of the motivation behind VF. I agree that
event-driven processing is the way to go. I agree that objects should
be parallel and should communicate asynchronously. Like you, I believe
in the soundness of the reactive model. I believe that this is the
true model of computing. It's the way it should have been from the
start but the mathematicians had something else in mind. As a result,
we are in software reliability and productivity crisis.
[...]

No crisis exists... You can create your reactive event-driven processing model with threads without using locks.

.