Content deleted Content added
add param |
|||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low |science=y |science-importance=Low |software=y |software-importance=Low}}
}}
{{lowercase title}}
{{FOLDOC|occam}}
==Untitled==
Does anyone know which versions of occam were implemented by the various revisions of the D700 TDS? I assume that the D705 and D7205 Toolsets implemented occam 2 (more or less) - [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 54 ⟶ 60:
IOS Press
278 pages
{{ISBN
Comprises discussions presented by leading international experts on the application of transputers. Coverage includes formalism, specifications and design, concurrent systems development, parallel algorithms, real time systems and applications.
Line 64 ⟶ 70:
IOS Press
253 pages
{{ISBN
The papers included in this book provide a wide coverage of current thinking and the new concepts which are being developed resulting from the introduction of the T9000. The role and use of the newly developed transputer and associated routeing component, the C104, is discussed.
Line 97 ⟶ 103:
== occam 3 ==
Should the '''occam 3''' variant of the occam programming language be mentioned in the [[occam (programming language)]] article?
Line 115 ⟶ 118:
:: For those unfamiliar with occam 3, a draft Reference Manual can be found [http://www.wotug.org/occam/documentation/oc3refman.pdf here] (this was cited in the occam 3 section of this article). [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] 10:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC).
::OK. After a quick look I can tell you that this is a modified version of the book I wrote. I do not have time for an indepth review of it right now. The floating point appendix looks the same as the one written for that book by David Shepherd. And it all has Geoff Barret's name on it! I scanned this book before (years ago) and I noted this then but figured no one would ever care TBH. So I don't know what to tell you. I certainly cannot support adding something about it without some substantive clarification preferably from David May or Roger Shepherd since they can speak with some authority on the matter.
::However, without this clarification, if you have a reference to a journal published scientific paper that has referenced this specification and has used the unique features of this language (whatever they are) to specify an algorithm in that paper, then I say yes, put it in. The paper can be one written and published by Geoff, for example. Otherwise, I vote no.
:: If the article was a more extensive piece covering the history of the development and presenting the language more completely etc.. then I's say put it in as a footnote. But there is a very very long way to go before anyone does that. Again I say, if you are burning energy on this talk page, better to actually add something substantive to the page and stop bickering. And while you are all at it, please do this transparently. I am not happy with people hiding behind aliases. If you have something to say, let's see who you are!
::--[[User:Stevenzenith|Steven Zenith]] 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks Steve! --[[User:Gwizard|Gwizard]] 21:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
:I am inclined to think that there should be a reference to the existence of that variation; I don't think that it has to be either a red link or a huge thing, just enough so that someone who comes here looking for information about Occam 3 can find that it is (was?) real and they should look further (and elsewhere) if that's what they need. Completely not mentioning it may lead people to think that their reference was a typo for Occam 2. [[User:OtterSmith|htom]] 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:: There is no reason at all to suppose that someone would go anywhere looking for information about Occam 3 as far as I can tell. No one has yet offered evidence that it either is or (was) real in any meaningful sense. --[[User:Stevenzenith|Steven Zenith]] 01:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::: I had previously heard of occam-pi and thought that it was occam-3, only with some kind of Knuthian numbering to perfection scheme. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:OtterSmith|OtterSmith]] ([[User talk:OtterSmith|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OtterSmith|contribs]]) 05:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::: Here are a few papers found via Google which cite the draft reference manual linked to above:
:::* [http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/203095.203097 Carlisle, W. H. 1995. Type checking concurrent I/O. ''ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.'' 17, 3 (May. 1995), 448-460.]
:::* [http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/araque97proposal.html F. Araque, M. Capel, J.M. Mantas, A., Palma. A Proposal to Improve Reusability in a language based on the Occam-CSP Programming Model. EUROMICRO Workshop on Parallel Programming, London (UK), 24-27 January 1997.]
:::* [http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/article/barnes02prioritised.html F.R.M. Barnes and P.H. Welch. Prioritised Dynamic Communicating Processes: Part I. In James Pascoe, Peter Welch, Roger Loader, and Vaidy Sunderam, editors, ''Communicating Process Architectures 2002 (WoTUG-25)'', IOS Press, 2002.]
:::*[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel2/962/7175/00288394.pdf?arnumber=288394 Carroll, M.C.; Pollock, L. Composites: trees for data parallel programming. Proc. 1994 International Conference on Computer Languages, IEEE, 16-19 May 1994, 43-54.]
:::*[http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/knee94program.html S. Knee. Program development and performance prediction on BSP machines using Opal. Technical Report PRG-TR-18-94, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Aug. 1994.]
::: Should a language specification be considered "meaningfully real" enough for Wikipedia if it has been cited in a journal or conference paper? [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] 11:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
::: Even better is : http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/context/81540/0 - yes I agree. It is disappointing, however, that Barrett has not referenced his co-authors, myself and David May included. --[[User:Stevenzenith|Steven Zenith]] 21:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So, to summarise: myself and [[User:OtterSmith]] are in favour, [[User:Stevenzenith]] is now in favour after initial scepticism, [[User:Wizzy]] will go along with Stevenzenith, and we can assume [[User:Gwizard]] is against. I suggest the motion is therefore carried. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC).
I concede that it should be mentioned as a footnote (to 2.1). I also agree with Steven Zenith that it would be more useful to put our effort into describing the language and not focus upon resolving these historical issues. Are we endorsing a historical deception? --[[User:Gwizard|Gwizard]] 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just found this discussion about occam 3. There are three points.
Firstly, has anyone checked that the occam 2.1 features were taken from occam 3? I suspect - and will try to get David May and Geoff Barrett's recollections on this - that the 2.1 features were drafted pre occam 3. They are essentially repairs to occam 2 to add data structures.
Secondly, IMHO occam 3 was a serious development. The additions to the language were, I think, primarily targeted at structure of parallel programs. [call channels, shared channels, modules and libraries]. I also think that some of these provided a way of exploiting some of the features of the T9000 transputer. These should all be of interest to language designers and those interested in parallel programming. Certainly a quick trawl through the Kent archives shows that the language features were discussed, and there is a on the WoTug website about occam 3 which includes the phrase "experience has shown up better alternatives to some of the problems the language addressed".
Finally, I think that in some ways occam 3 represented the end of interest in that type of parallel programming. One that has recently restarted - maybe the occam article shoudl be extended to include a reference to xc?[[User:RogerShepherd|Roger]] ([[User talk:RogerShepherd|talk]]) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Roger, thanks for your comments. As for the relationship between occam 2.1 and 3, Conor O'Neill's "occam-2.5" definition document (SW-0429-8) [http://www.wotug.org/occam/documentation/oc21small.pdf] claims that some features were borrowed from occam 3, and as I understand it, the final occam 2.1 didn't differ much from that. [[User:Letdorf|Letdorf]] ([[User talk:Letdorf|talk]]) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
Having talked to Geoff Barrett, he confirms that the features in 2.1/2.5 defined after occam 3 was defined. He also says the type system was around before he started on occam 3 and suggests I might have something to do with it. I don't remember doing anything on that and I think it must be David May's work.
Finally, I'll point out that the occam 3 definition was never formally published; if it had been it would probably have not had an author's name. The versions which have surfaced will have carried Geoff's name as he was certainly the "owner" of the document.--[[User:RogerShepherd|Roger]] ([[User talk:RogerShepherd|talk]]) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
== Programming manual occam (1983) ==
I have this spiral book and plan to scan it. It will later be published on http://www.transputer.net/obooks/obooks.asp. However, I would like to place a scan of the green front page on this occam page. It has no ISBN, but printed "Copyright 1983 INMOS Limited" on the first page. Will it be allowed to publish the front page here? It may be that this is the first publication of the occam language. –[[User:Aclassifier|Øyvind Teig]] ([[User talk:Aclassifier|talk]]) 15:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Alternatively, could I take a photo of the book, laying on a table and then publish that photo here? –[[User:Aclassifier|Øyvind Teig]] ([[User talk:Aclassifier|talk]]) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:IANAL but I think [[WP:FUC]] would allow reproduction of the cover here. It definitely allows company logos and album covers. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::Thanks. I have now published the photo in the article. But for some reason it's shown with the Norwegian subtext. I also added English ("1983 "occam" by INMOS Limited") and German subtexts. How can one make the engilsh subtext seeen? (Fixed, it was just ine the alternative text!) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aclassifier|Aclassifier]] ([[User talk:Aclassifier#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aclassifier|contribs]]) 20:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> –[[User:Aclassifier|Øyvind Teig]] ([[User talk:Aclassifier|talk]]) 20:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:1983 1988 Trademark occam and occam 2 INMOS Limited.jpg|1983 1988 Trademark occam and occam 2 INMOS Limited.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-01T23:21:59.883900 | 1983 1988 Trademark occam and occam 2 INMOS Limited.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1983 1988 Trademark occam and occam 2 INMOS Limited.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 23:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
| |||