Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cat.cmu.edu!jps
From: jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
Subject: Re: choosing parallel languages
Message-ID: <5739@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Aug 89 07:02:11 GMT
References: <8908011650.AA12679@kanga.cs.umass.edu.edu> <5726@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <275@oscsuna.osc.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 19

In article <275@oscsuna.osc.edu> stein@pixelpump.UUCP (Rick 'Transputer' Stein) writes:

> I have found C to be far more capable for creating data abstractions
> than occam.  For my money, any form of computer simulation is dependent
> on 2 things: 1) Abstraction of the problem specification into structures
> which mimic their "real-world" behavior, and 2) The creation of operators
> for these strucutures.  This programming style is more easily
> achieved with C, C++, or Ada, than with occam.

In Occam, abstraction is by processes.  Operators, then, are
messages sent (through channels) to the processes.  This
seems simple to me and fits well into your simulation model.

Which dialect of C do you use for multiprogramming?

:James
-- 

:James P. Salsman (jps@CAT.CMU.EDU)