Content deleted Content added
m Removing talk page attribution templates per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 18, Replaced: {{FOLDOC talk}} → using AWB |
→occam 3: added query about relationship to occam 2.1 and added statement about importance |
||
Line 148:
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)
| |||