TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:24:14 -0700
Reply-To:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Message from Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]> of "Mon, 16 Aug 1999 16:35:16 PDT."
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
A side note... in the late '80s, Bell Labs had a project to design an
set of extensions to C for tasking intrinsics.  The resulting language
was called "Concurrent C".

The term they used in Concurrent C for a task was: "task".

The tasking model in Concurrent C was quite like that of Ada.  The
language was designed by Narain Gehani, who is very Ada-literate and has
written a number of textbooks on concurrent programming (including a
recent Java-oriented one).

Concurrent C had an Ada-like synchronous rendezvous concept.  They
enlarged upon this by adding an asynchronous variant.

Bell subsequently merged the Concurrent C stuff with C++ to
create "Concurrent C++", but unlike C++, Concurrent C never achieved
critical mass.  If it had, then maybe "task" would have
become the commonly-known term instead of "thread"!

--

Mark Lundquist
Senior Software Engineer
Rational Software
Development Solutions Business Unit
UNIX Suites Group
Aloha, OR, USA

ATOM RSS1 RSS2