Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ciancarini-paolo From: ciancarini-paolo@CS.YALE.EDU (paolo ciancarini) Newsgroups: comp.parallel Subject: Re: parallel programming model Message-ID: <12233@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 13 Dec 90 12:49:05 GMT Sender: fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 33 Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu In article <12221@hubcap.clemson.edu> hshi@maytag.waterloo.edu writes: >A naive question: > We have two parallel programming models: shared memory model via >shared variables and distributed memory model via message passing. >Is there any model which is some where between? Will it be more suitable >for the persent comptuter architectures? A naive answer: >From a linguistic point of view, "Infinite systems exist" (Dedekind). :) More seriously, I would say that Linda'a Generative communication through a Tuple Space is different from both. I believe that the Tuple Space model, that can be called also the blackboard model because it shares many interesting features with this architectural paradigm for AI applications, is NEITHER a msg passing model, because agents do not know about each other and the Tuple Space is Shared and communications are associative, NOR a shared memory model because agents do not shared variables or a global environment (in fact, for Linda exist both shared memory implementations and distributed memory implementations, but this is another issue). >From a semantic point of view, however, it seems to me that we have only two models: the CCS interleaving model and the Petri Net distributed model. It is unclear to me if does exist a third basic model in the sense that Linda seems to be basically different from shared memory and msg passing. Maybe the Chemical Abstract Machine could be the basis for such a third model. By the way, the CHAM has many features in common with Linda. Paolo Ciancarini Universita' di Pisa and Yale Computer Science Dept.