🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CI0JXHAqLCwzEw1e@cawley.demon.co.uk>, Alec Cawley
<alec@cawley.demon.co.uk> writes

>May I suggest asking this question on comp.sys.transputer? There are a
>lot of people there interested in parallel systems. There was a recent
>post (if your newsserver goes back 14 days, it will probably still have
>it, and it is not a high traffic group) about people working on adding
>"theoretically pure" parallelism to Java - they reckoned that Java's
>intrinsic parallelism was very impure (I pass no comment).



    I didn't know there _was_ a c.s.transputer.  I'm only subscribed to
a mailing list which is very low traffic and always talking about wierd
things to do with KROK and SPOC.


    I am a huge fan of Occam, the transputer, and by proxy, Tony Hoare.
Dahell with whether it's "theoretically pure":  Occam is an absolute
delight to program in.  Very, very elegant solutions that seem to come
straight from the data flow diagrams you doodled the day before.


    I always silently disliked the bloated accountancy feel of Ada, and
I really became a convert to "less is more" when I learnt to use Occam.


    Java and Ada in comparison to Occam is really plodding stuff,
parallelilly.


    I will subscribe to c.s.transputer at once.  In fact I've already
done it.  And it's not moderated, neither!


Regards and thanks,




Sandy

/*  Correct my address in any reply, or it'll be treated as spam: 
--                                                          
//     Alexander Anderson    <DELETE_THIS.sandy@almide.demon.co.uk>
//     Home Fone                               +44 (0) 171-794-4543
//     London, UK                    http://www.almide.demon.co.uk/ 
//     PGP print   C6 8C 55 F2 77 7B 99 9B  14 77 66 F5 B8 74 CF 12
*/