🚀 go-pugleaf

> Perhaps, but I can think of two cases that might lead to different
> opinions about Occam. First of all, Cogent Research, which makes a
> Transputer-based workstation called the X/TM, uses Linda (C-Linda,
> kernel Linda, etc) as its primary programming language. If the
> Transputer and Occam are such a wonderful fit, why has Cogent Research
> jumped on the Linda bandwagon?
I don't think our choice of Linda had much to do with whether occam is
elegant, precise or whatever.  It is a mistake to assert that there is
one correct or best language for parallel programming (or sequential
programming for that matter).  I know many satisfied occam programmers
(besides Craig!), and can think of applications where occam would be a
better language than C and Linda.  Writing an operating system is not
one of them.  And that ignores the commercial realities of occam in
North America.

I would also like to point out that Linda is not a language, it is
(mainly) a communication paradigm.  There is no reason why one couldn't
build occam-Linda.

> I certainly don't want to start another processor war, but I am curious
> as to what was meant by Transputer being the best design for parallel
> machines.
The transputer was the first microprocessor designed for parallel processing.
It is simple, elegant, and powerful.

Steve's comments are well taken, but I would like to see more discussion
about what (I believe) Craig's posting was all about -- that with a little
hype and hoopla, Intel is taking the market away from Inmos, and Inmos seems
to be doing everything in its power to help them.

Wm Leler
Cogent Research

p.s. I've heard a rumor that Inmos/Thompson has recently dropped
Regis-McKenna, and will be doing their own PR.

p.p.s. To their credit, I believe Inmos has offered free booth space
at SIGGRAPH this year, so maybe they are starting to wake up?