claim

active

claim:object-oriented-concepts-are-irrelevant-to-solving-parallel-programming-challenges

Object-oriented concepts are irrelevant to solving parallel programming challenges.

Strong assertion that the enthusiasm for 'concurrent object-oriented programming' is misplaced; objects do not inherently help with parallelism.

Source paper

extracted_from

Linda in context

(1989) · Carrier, Nicholas · Gelernter, David

Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count

Communities (4)

community

Design principles for care-centered systems
members_of
Cross-scale frameworks linking spatial patterns, diagrams, and simplicity as expressions of care in design.
Denotational design and interface abstraction
members_of
Applies functional programming principles to UI structure via precise mathematical models, enabling formal verification and revealing computational architecture through interface design.
Parallelism independence from object-oriented paradigms
members_of
Argues that OOP abstractions don't address inherent challenges of concurrent/parallel system design and coordination.
OOP irrelevance to parallelism
members_of
Argues object-oriented abstractions provide no meaningful leverage for parallel programming challenges.

Frameworks (1)

framework

Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming
contradicts
A major competing approach to parallel programming based on instantiating objects with embedded active processes and monitors for synchronization.

Related by similarity (8)

cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edge

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

Object-oriented programming is powerful and attractive, but irrelevant to parallelism.claim0.882
Claim that OOP per se does not solve any parallel programming problems.
Object-oriented design is orthogonal to parallelism; 'objects' themselves do not help with parallel programming.claim0.852
Concurrent object systems reduce to message-passing or monitors; objects solve code organization, not concurrency coordination.
Parallel programming needn't be terribly difficult, but 'thinking in simultaneities' as in message-passing is calculated to make it difficult.claim0.810
Asserts that Linda's uncoupled style reduces cognitive load.
Concurrent object oriented programming has little or no meaning; it strikes us as more of a marketing than a technical term.claim0.809
Strong assertion that OOP does not inherently address parallelism.
The strengths of all three models (concurrent OOP, logic, functional) are irrelevant to parallelism, and generally unhelpful in dealing with process creation and coordination.claim0.803
Assertion that the popular models add nothing to parallel programming.
Pure functional languages cannot be the whole story for parallel programming because they fail to provide needed expressivity.claim0.785
Argument that recursion equations are inappropriate for many important parallel programs.
Explicitly parallel programs are not inherently harder to design or understand than functional specifications.claim0.777
C-Linda DNA comparison is comparable in length and clarity to Crystal; pragmatic runtime granularity control outweighs compiler optimization ideals.
Two concepts should not have the same purpose; additional concepts for the same purpose create needless complexity.claim0.764
No redundancy criterion.