🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rob.722034771@dutncp8> rob@pact.nl (Rob Kurver) writes:
>I'm afraid you've lost me:  why do you think parallelism prevents
>recursion, pointers, dynamic memory and (especially) data structures?
>Parallelism may complicate matters, but it doesn't actually prevent any
>of these things.

As Roger Shepherd said, the mixture of the two, colours performance issues.

>Not necessarily.  A smart enough compiler system may well be able to
>support recursion at a small price if used, but without any overhead if

Why should there have to be a price.

>not used.  This can be implemented by a smart linker, which uses a call
                                         slow

>I don't believe it would be wise for Inmos or any other transputer
>compiler vendor to have parallel and sequential versions of their tools.

What I was suggesting was a sequential language (not that I want to wait
longer for occam 3, but).  This language looks like occam 3 and has a similar
foundation, but has no parallelism, instead it has recursion and pointers and
things.  However, I suspect that "recursion & pointers" and "similar
foundation" are logically incompatible.

>Cheers. - Rob

Warren