back to notes

Linda and beyond

Checking around the web for Linda stuff:

"Grid Computing & the Linda Programming Model" (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/217)
: provides links to 'Acute', along with noting that "I expect the original Linda primitives to work best in the languages with extremely lightweight concurrency (so long "who needs 106 threads anyway"). In Java one cannot afford to block on "in()", so JavaSpaces adopted notifications, which in my opinion killed the conceptual simplicity. All in all, I tend to perceive Linda as a precursor of Oz programming model"

"Distributed Objects vs. Messaging" (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2296)
"in my experience the major advantage of data-driven design is that it encourages more loosely coupled components."
"Well, it encourages coupling components to particular data formats and protocols. Calling this "loose coupling" is an euphemism. [...] I would like to de-center all this X-centric software ideologies with the assertion that heterogenous systems-of-systems are the norm and not the exception and functionality that couples / translates data and objects and being separated in an own layer foremeost enables components to be components. "
"i see a valid euphemism (here, did it again) in differentiating coupling as a quality measure from a system architectural point of view. coupling components through protocols tends to yield a different component design, as compared to coupling components through interwoven logics.
i absolutely agree that the point is kind of moot, as neither of the x-centric approaches forces you to do things in the wrong way."

Also note that the Bloom papers make note of Linda without specifics, but Bloom's approach allows for DETECTION of causality violations: does Linda's approach simply not allow those in the first place?