Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!sot-ecs!igl From: igl@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Ian Glendinning) Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: producers and consumers Message-ID: <6591@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Date: 7 Feb 91 14:50:58 GMT References: <1461.9101292134@prg.oxford.ac.uk> <1991Feb6.122949.8210@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Organization: University of Southampton, UK Lines: 34 In <1991Feb6.122949.8210@rodan.acs.syr.edu> greeny@wotan.top.cis.syr.edu (Jonathan Greenfield) writes: >CSP is a fine theoretical entity, but it surely is not a programming language, >since CSP (as defined in Hoare's book) "programs" are not capable of actually >doing anything. (Hoare's definition of parallel composition is inadequate.) Please explain. Why is it inadequate? >Occam is the rather ugly result of one attempt at including the elegant >concepts of CSP in a practical and efficient programming language. Ugly? That's a matter of opinion... >(Note that, ignoring the procedural/functional differences, the main >conceptual difference between CSP and occam involves the action of parallel >composition.) Again, please explain. I always thought they were the same. >At a purely practical level, the 'copy-penalty' is probably not a real issue >since any program that aspires to efficieny (when compared to sequential >programs) must be coarse-grained enough so as to make the communication >time negligible when compared to the computation time. When this is the case >the 'copy-penalty' will obviously be negligible also. Agreed. >Jonathan Ian -- I.Glendinning@ecs.soton.ac.uk Ian Glendinning Tel: +44 703 593081 Electronics and Computer Science Fax: +44 703 593045 University of Southampton SO9 5NH England