Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!qmc-cs!jont
From: jont@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Jon Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Which language to teach first?
Message-ID: <1190@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Aug 89 08:41:06 GMT
References: <1304@batserver.cs.uq.oz> <6264@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: jont@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Jon Taylor)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK.
Lines: 19
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <6264@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>       .......  The only parallelism they
>       offer is hidden in their implementation; it is implicit.  A truly
>       parallel language would make its concurrency explicit, and allow
>       arbitrary computation over the agents of parallelism.

I refer you here to the work done at Yale on the langauge
ParAlFl. A functional language which allows for explicit
concurrency. The main strength of this langauge as far as I
could see was that it was possible to develop a program on a
sequential machine and then run the program on a parallel
machine with or without the explicit parallel notations.

Mail me if you want references.

Jon Taylor
Queen Mary College
Uni. of London
jont@cs.qmc.ac.uk