Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!fpst
From: kddlab!icot31.icot.or.jp!hawley@uunet.UU.NET (David John Hawley)
Newsgroups: comp.parallel
Subject: Re: Need STRAND 88 source ...
Keywords: STRAND 88
Message-ID: <1991May24.120734.24989@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 24 May 91 07:27:58 GMT
References: <1991May20.025248.26252@csrd.uiuc.edu> <1991May23.180217.9427@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: kddlab!icot32.icot.or.jp!news@uunet.UU.NET
Distribution: comp
Organization: Fifth Generation Computing Systems (ICOT), Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 26
Approved: parallel@hubcap.clemson.edu


In article <1991May23.180217.9427@hubcap.clemson.edu> eecs!warren@uunet.UU.NET (Warren Harrison) writes:
>We've also found that the overhead added by Strand isn't all that bad,
>so applications written in Strand don't run much slower than ones written
>in FORTRAN. The downside is that Strand requires you to carry around a

Hmmm.  I know that Prolog compiler technology has advanced a great deal
recently (yes, I know that Strand is not Prolog!), but I still would
expect Strand to run maybe an order of magnitude slower than FORTRAN or
its ilk.  I know that Argonne National Labs was using hybrid Strand-FORTRAN
programming to overcome Strand's overhead, and I've heard it rumoured that
they are developing a parallel language which is moving further in the FORTRAN
direction.

All this to say "Can you explain why or demonstrate how (i.e. benchmarks)
Strand isn't much slower than FORTRAN?"

David Hawley





-- 
Location: 4th-lab, ICOT, 1-4-28 Mita, Minato-ku Tokyo 108 JAPAN.
EMail: hawley@icot.or.jp, hawley@icot.jp@relay.cs.net,
       uucp:{enea,inria,kddlab,mit-eddie,ukc}!icot!hawley

-- 
=========================== MODERATOR ==============================
Steve Stevenson                            {steve,fpst}@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            comp.parallel
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell