Posts By: Shelby Moore III
| Date | Post | Topic |
| 10/27/2009 | HaXe sort of does it, so I assume OCaml also? | Type constructors based on capabilities of type arguments? |
| 10/22/2009 | Massively parallel implies atomic OO design | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Per-instance mutex granularity | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Philosophical macro view | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Is the algorithmic expression at the language layer? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Multi-threading problem space validates My Theory of Everything? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Global is caching instance state external to owning instance | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | No global means "shared nothing" | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | My global state is relative to errors we can kill | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Applicable programming paradigms for out-of-order execution? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Design priorities | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Fatality vs. probabilistic tradeoff revisited | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Not without caching data for rollback? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Mutexes don't rollback | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Agree rollback transactions are useful, but we need both | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Not without external dependencies propagation error | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Non STM aware external references | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Transactions atomize groups of mutable effects | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Use the best tool for the job | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | No free lunch | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Is (up to WAN) propagation of transactions desirable? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Rollback is predicted on infinite sampling model | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Rollback is safe if used locally | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Combining concurrency strategies | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Monitor mutual-exclusion | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/24/2009 | Hacking away composability? | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/25/2009 | RE: Composition with Transaction Barriers | Seeking broad survey of wide range of concurrency idioms |
| 10/23/2009 | Is the algorithmic expression at the language layer? | The End of the GPU Roadmap |
| 10/22/2009 | Massively parallel implies atomicity | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Example rule? | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Batch updates emulate the asynchronous nature of real world | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Still leaning towards the per-instance granularity for OO code | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Optimistic concurrency is smaller granularity than per-instance | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | STM even worse for multi-instance transactions? | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Transactional Actors Model | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Probabilistic preferred to fatality? | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | No global means "shared nothing" | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/23/2009 | Breaking pessimistic deadlocks introduces error? | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/24/2009 | OOP concepts extend to external order dependencies | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/24/2009 | STM risks | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/25/2009 | delete duplicate post | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/25/2009 | RE: STM Risks | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/25/2009 | RE: STM Risks | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/26/2009 | RE: STM Risks | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/24/2009 | No inconsistency? | Patrick Logan on Software Transaction Memory |
| 10/24/2009 | Base classes can be extended with interfaces? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/27/2009 | Implementation not inherited | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/24/2009 | OOP did not fail as he claimed | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/25/2009 | OOP never promised LSP... | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/25/2009 | OOP didn't promise, humans idolize semantics | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/25/2009 | Reason must know itself or it is not reason | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/25/2009 | Extremely relevant | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ did not conflate subtyping and subclassing! | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Repeatability is an illusion of shared reality (White Swans) | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ subclassing does subclasstyping, subdatatyping, or both | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | What is your request?? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ does what you requested | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C+ can express non-inheritable methods | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | What is problem? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ can express private (local/hidden) inheritance | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Zigzag is not a valid win in Bingo :) (Illogic 102) | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ does subtyping w/o subclassing | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | You are conflating, not C++ | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Show me how I misdefined sub(data)typing? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Facts? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Who was wrong? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Real problems have solutions, imaginary problems may not | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | C++ subclass contracts do not force conflation | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | How do we explain orthogonality to someone who can't see it? | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Illogic 101 | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| 10/26/2009 | Programming is to some degree random like a fortune cookie | The Next Mainstream Programming Languages |
| LtU Topic Index Sorted by Date | LtU Topic Index Sorted by Topic | LtU Index of Post Authors | Zipped LtU Archive |