

Parallel Computing: Why the Future Is Non-Algorithmic - Mapou
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2008/05/parallel-computing-why-future-is-non.html

======
apathy
_A thread is an algorithm, i.e., a one-dimensional sequence of operations to
be executed one at a time._

Well, it's too bad that none of these pesky algorithms can be logically
decomposed into independent processes and run all at once. Like, say, every
matrix multiplication ever done by a multi-pipelined GPU in the past 20 years.

This is really the worst sort of trolling. Every time I looked up from
studying today, I feel like I read something after which I was stupider than
before. I mean, just look at what's become of my grammar, if nothing else...

~~~
Tamerlin
He clearly doesn't even know what an algorithm is, yet is pontificates madly
about how they preclude parallel code. I guess he doesn't think that
distributed ray-tracing involves pesky things like "algorithms" either, eh?
Naw, ray-tracing is an algorithm if you run it in a single thread, but it's
not an algorithm when running in parallel... at least according to his logic.

I've found that bad engineers detest threads, but good ones like them when
they're appropriate for the task at hand. This is further evidence of that.

------
IsaacSchlueter
Does Mapou == Louis Savain? <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=Mapou>

~~~
DougBTX
And jobeemar == Louis Savain too?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=jobeemar>

~~~
DougBTX
Actually, naa, don't think so. Not enough "LOL"'s in his comments.

------
fauigerzigerk
I'm not sure I understand this, but it appears to me that the consequence
would be a reversal of defaults. Now we assume that a sequence of commands is
the default and parallelism has to be explicit. He proposes to make
parallelism the default and sequence explicit.

My question would be, is parallelism really the more frequent case? I mean if
we take all the instructions in a program and analyse which ones are just
accidentially sequential and which ones have to be sequential to be correct,
would we have more parallel pairs or more squential pairs of instructions?

I believe we have more sequential pairs and that it'd be very cumbersome to
default to parallelism. But there may be special cases where defaulting to
parallelism is beneficial.

~~~
meredydd
There has been some genuine research work in this area, with pretty much the
ideas that you're suggesting. Google for data-flow computer architecture for a
low-level take on the idea at the instruction level. (This guy seems to be
talking about some similar concepts in places, but it's difficult to tell
beneath the incoherence.)

There's also a bunch of work been done (with pure-functional computations or
languages, for example, as well as some weirder research work with imperative
languages), examining the writing of programs with automatic parallelism, with
sequential ordering only when explicitly requested.

 _However_ , there's a big difference between actual work and the stuff this
guy is spouting.

------
gaius
Who keeps posting these links to rebelscience? It's just gibberish.

------
cracki
yes, that blog is the work of a troll. what he's talking about has merit
though, intentionally or not.

~~~
arockwell
The blog post is full of hand-waving and the mindset that "if you think this
you must be stupid".

I'm extremely wary of anyone promoting the next silver bullet for writing
software. The Project COSA, <http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/COSA.htm>, that
the author mentions sounds very complex, and I have no idea how using such a
system would simplify writing code.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
Louis Savain's "arguments", which he likes to claim "over people's heads", are
mostly just examples of the Argument from Intimidation fallacy. Ie, "only an
idiot would disagree with this". (Complete with overly complicated and
inadequately labeled diagrams, to try to make you feel stupid, so that you'll
more susceptible to this tactic.) I don't buy it for a second. I've built
logic circuits. I've written assembly code. He hates computer languages
because he's full of shit; there's no polite way to put it.

Greater parallelism in hardware is a fine goal. But it's madness to write
programs for processors. If humans can't read it, then your program is crap.
There are no exceptions.

We have these many processors. The task is not to make parallelism fit on a
single chip. The task is to develop practices and languages that allow humans
to write code for other humans, in such a way that programs also incidentally
take advantage of the many (threaded, algorithmic) von Neuman machines that we
have wired together in modern computers.

In just a few years, 8 or 16 (or more!) cores won't be a big deal. When you
have 50 single-threaded cores, you have a different kind of computer than what
we're used to today. We already have languages that take advantage of these
features pretty well. They're not hugely popular yet, but they're also not
being taught at universities, and we're not yet at a point where they're
terribly necessary.

The COSA project is imaginary yak shaving of the worst sort. If he was half
the hacker he claimed to be, he'd be writing programs instead of crackpot
papers. Where is all the useful error-free software that COSA makes it so easy
to create? Where's the web server he built with it, or the word processor?
Hell, I'd be impressed with a 4-function calculator! Show me the goods, and
I'll take it seriously. I'll even join the beta and play around with the
stuff.

Until then, in my view, Savain is on par with the muttering bum at the bus
stop.

~~~
bdfh42
Exactly - thanks - you saved me making virtually the same points. This guy
really should make use of a dictionary and look up terms such as "Algorithm" -
he might learn some stuff.

------
rw
This picture the OP includes reminds me of TimeCube:

[http://bp3.blogger.com/_BXJTG_K68fU/SB6ibLP3ExI/AAAAAAAAAE0/...](http://bp3.blogger.com/_BXJTG_K68fU/SB6ibLP3ExI/AAAAAAAAAE0/t9l-kpWEuXk/s400/ScreenHunter_03+May.+05+00.41.gif)

------
Mapou
You Turing worshippers are so full of hate. You sound like somebody just
blasphemed against your two-bit god. LOL. Too bad for you that the parallel
programming crisis is about to bring Turing down from his pedestal. Then
you'll shut the hell up. I have a wide grin on my face just thinking about it.

Money always talks and no chicken-shit cult of propeller heads can stop that.
LOL.

~~~
gills
I logged in just to mod you down, due to the dull sadness I feel at your
apparent sense of obligation to spew such bile.

This blog post is full of misconceptions and appears to be written by an
individual who has not sufficiently delved into algorithms, parallel
computing, or operations research. Similar problem has been around for
decades, such as controlling the flow of tasks on parallel factory assembly
lines. Guess what helps us find near-optimal flows? That's right: algorithms.

