[clean-list] implicit parallelism languages, languages and hardware

Khamenia, Valery V.Khamenia@BioVisioN.de
Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:49:38 +0200


Hello Marco,

I do believe we are not out of mail list theme.

> It is relatively easy to come up with languages that express massive
parallel computation. 

1. Maybe term "massive" is somewhat ambiguous here, what do *you* imply
saying "massive"?

2. Is it your opinion or common one in this professional field?

> Both implicit or explicit. 

There's no interests with explicit parallelism, at least for me. 
Indeed, one could successfully use it not only in means of nowadays 
languages but decades of years ago.

Concerning implicit parallelism languages, I'd say with conviction: 

there is no real implicit parallelism languages today.

> I understand that you are enthousiastic about massive parallellism, 
> but in my humble opinion, I think you will find that it is very hard
>  to get investors interested.

You know, attracting investors is always difficult. 

>  There used to exist a massively parallell machine called 
> "The Connection Machine" from the Thinking Machines Corporation. 
> They went bankrupt. 

1. A lot of company went bankrupt with more classical businesses.
2. History know a lot examples when innovation comes too early 
    and is postponed for a next reincarnation.

Please do not use too general argumentation. Speaking about 
"The Connection Machine" precedent you definitely imply some 
important factors, so, please, name them.

> But there seems to be a lot of interest in quantumcomputing... 

why not to recommend me a DNA-replication based one?
Look at my signature below :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valery A.Khamenya
Bioinformatics Department
BioVisioN AG, Hannover