Jump to content

Talk:Dataflow programming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.43.251.54 (talk) at 01:46, 15 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Surely this article is erroneous in saying that data-flow languages are all visual? The (first?) data-flow language Lucid has no visual environment for programming.

Riftor 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some points, which I will address should I get the time:

  • The parallellism that dataflow languages inherently support is not as useful as it seems; in practise, the parallellism is too finely grained for modern multicomputer architectures, and the overhead of managing dataflow at runtime is excessive.
  • Prograph was designed originally to be a visual programming language; it is a dataflow-based language as a side-effect, based on the fact that the dataflow paradigm lends itself well to the visual design space (I know this because Dr. Philip Cox, the maker of Prograph, is an instructor of mine).

Penumbra 2k 21:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can the following line -- "On machines with a single processor core where an implementation designed for parallel operation would simply introduce overhead, this overhead can be removed completely by using a different runtime." be explained better? It is not clear to me what the last part of the sentence means -- i.e. how does using a different runtime(?) remove overhead?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dataflow_programming&oldid=58688010"