
Intel: 1000-core processor possible - fogus
http://www.macworld.com/article/155871/2010/11/thousand_core.html
======
julius
Can someone elaborate on the meaning of this for future programming paradigms?

From what I understand, we need to get rid of shared memory when we have more
than 1000 cores. Is that correct? Should I stop using Threads and prefer
Processes whenever possible, now?

~~~
phaedrus
I think so. Actually the mantra "processes, not threads!" is something I've
found to be a good way to solve problems in general. For instance, when I
needed to run 3 simulated microcontrollers in a simulator that supported
circuit plugins but only one microcontroller per simulation, this new way of
thinking led me to realize: instead of trying to make the single simulator
support 3 cpus, simply run 3 copies of the simulator process (and use tcp/ip
to link them, via custom circuit plugins). I think, that once we embrace
separate processes for concurrency instead of threads, we'll begin to see how
abandoning the shared memory model can actually make some things simpler.

