(j3.2006) Liaison to IFIP WG 2.5

Dan Nagle dannagle
Tue Aug 21 16:50:50 EDT 2007


Lawrie Schonfelder wrote:


> I would have to say that co-arrays are also not generally applicable.

Parallel programming today is a mainstream programming technique.
Mail clients, web browsers, and office suites all are
multiprocessing programs.

> As an optional part/TR they
> are obviously desirable but since they are clearly an architecturally specific efficiency aid, not
> providing general problem solving expression support,

The above demonstrates that Lawrie doesn't understand co-arrays.

One great advantage of co-arrays is
their architectural >>> independence <<< from either
SMP or DMP hardware, and thereby their suitability
on any combination of the two (i.e., DMP with SMP nodes).

>  I remain emphatically opposed to their
> inclusion as a core part of Fortran in much the same way as I would not wish intervals to be
> included as an intrinsic.
> I remain convinced that F2010 with co-arrays as an integral part of the standard is unacceptable and
> so would a core Fortran with intervals as an intrinsic type!

Having neatly hijacked the thread ...

At the expense of getting back to the topic at hand,
Van didn't ask to advocate intervals, he asked to liaise
with WG 2.5.  Why not see what that committee does,
before starting the tirades?


Hint:  Google is your friend.


Dan Nagle
Purple Sage Computing Solutions, Inc.

More information about the J3 mailing list