Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014)

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by ta2384428 on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @08:48AM (#16429377)

I'm not familiar with OMP, so please forgive me if I'm incorrect - but OMP from my quick search appears to be thread based, while go routines are much lighter weight than threads. They have their own scheduler - which like most things is both good and bad depending on what you want them for. If you use them as intended, the internal scheduler is a great design decision. This means I can happily spawn 10,000 without concern.

Additionally, combining them with the power of channels makes quick work of many tasks. Channels of course can be implemented in C++ too, but having the compiler take care of it for you with additional tools such as the race detector is very handy.

For a large set of problems, they are very nice to work with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by pjmlp on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @10:21AM (#16430043)

You can do the same in C++ on Windows with PPL, UNIX/Windows with Intel TBB, or any of the fiber/co-routine libraries.

Then there is the ongoing work to add async/await patterns into C++20.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by quadcore on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @10:34AM (#16430143)

As a matter of fact, you can do the same in assembly if you want to.

Notice how you can always have that answer when it comes to programming languages: you can do the same in. The point is that, the way it's made in go, is awfully handy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by pjmlp on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @11:52AM (#16430823)

I hardly see a difference from

    go func () { }

and

    Task.Run(() => { })

With the benefit that on the latter example, the runtime allows me to customise how scheduling is done.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by quadcore on Thursday February 22, 2018 @02:52AM (#16435980)

Are those Tasks coroutines? If yes, do they yield on any sleeps?

These aspects are key to goroutines.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by pjmlp on Thursday February 22, 2018 @03:43AM (#16436175)

Yes they do, they are the building blocks for async/await, get a thread allocated from a thread pool when running, and you can control how the scheduling takes place, by providing your own scheduler implementation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by ta2384428 on Thursday February 22, 2018 @08:54AM (#16437520)

That is pretty cool, C++ has come a long way since I used it last about 15 years ago.

It seems like both languages are equally capable here, with C++ having more power and foot guns when required as usual.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by pjmlp on Thursday February 22, 2018 @01:25PM (#16439937)

The code snippet example I wrote was actually .NET with TPL.

C++ with PPL on Windows, would be

    task<T> handle = create_task([] { /* ... */ });

And with standard C++

    future<T> handle = std::async(std::launch::async, [] { /* ... */ });

In both cases, with C++20 it will be possible to co_await handle, which you can already play with on clang and VC++.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why has CPU frequency ceased to grow? (2014) by creato on Wednesday February 21, 2018 @10:59AM (#16430350)

Every OpenMP implementation I know of uses a thread pool, and dispatches parallel work to it.

This is probably exactly the same behavior as goroutines.

[ Parent | on HN ]