Some theoretical aspects of applicative multiprocessing

  • Robert M. Keller
Invited Lectures
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 88)

Abstract

We have described several aspects of languages and systems for “applicative” multiprocessing, including some solved and some unsolved problems. From a theoretical point of view, the combination of distributed processing and applicative languages seems to provided an extremely interesting and varied array of topics for future investigation. There seems to be little doubt that this combination will have a significant impact on future uses of computers, as well as theories relating to these uses.

Keywords

Garbage Collection Function Graph Input Tree Denotational Semantic Path Expression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ashcroft and Wadge 77]
    E.A. Ashcroft and W.W. Wadge. Lucid, a nonprocedural language with iteration. CACM, 20, 7, 519–526 (July 1977).Google Scholar
  2. [Balzer 71]
    R.M. Balzer. Ports — A method for dynamic interprogram communication and job control. AFIPS Proc. 38, 485–489 (Spring 1971).Google Scholar
  3. [Campbell and Habermann 74]
    R.H. Campbell and A.N. Habermann. The specification of process synchronization by path expressions in Gelenbe and Kaiser (eds.) Operating Systems, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 16, 89–102 (1974).Google Scholar
  4. [Church 1941]
    A. Church. The calculi of lambda-conversion. Princeton University Press (1941).Google Scholar
  5. [Dijkstra, et al. 78]
    E.W. Dijkstra, et al. On-the-fly garbage collection: An exercise in cooperation. CACM, 21, 11, 966–975 (Nov. 1978).Google Scholar
  6. [Forrester 73]
    J. W. Forrester. World dynamics. Wright-Allen Press (1973).Google Scholar
  7. [Friedman and Wise 76]
    D.P. Friedman and D.S. Wise. CONS should not evaluate its arguments. in Michaelson and Milner (eds.), Automata, Languages, and Programming, 257–284, Edinburgh University Press (1976).Google Scholar
  8. [Friedman and Wise 78]
    D.P. Friedman and D.S. Wise. The impact of applicative programming on multiprocessing. IEEE Trans. on Computers, C-27, 4, 289–296 (April 1978).Google Scholar
  9. [Giordano 80]
    J.V. Giordano. A transformation for parallel programs with indeterminate operators. UC Irvine Dataflow Architecture Project Note No. 46 (Feb. 1980).Google Scholar
  10. [Henderson and Morris 76]
    P. Henderson and J.H. Morris, Jr. A lazy evaluator. Proc. Third ACM Conference on Principles of Programming Languages, 95–103 (1976).Google Scholar
  11. [Hoare 72]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Proof of correctness of data representations. Acta Informatica, 1, 271–281 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. [Hoare 78]
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. CACM, 21, 8, 666–677 (Aug. 1978).Google Scholar
  13. [Ichbiah, et al. 79]
    J.D. Ichbiah, et al. Rationale for the design of the ADA programming language. Sigplan notices, 14, 6, Part B (June 1979).Google Scholar
  14. [Jayaraman 80]
    B. Jayaraman. Resource control in a demand-driven data-flow model. University of Utah, Dept. of Computer Science, PhD dissertation proposal (May 1980).Google Scholar
  15. [Kahn 74]
    G. Kahn. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. Proc. IFIP '74, 471–475 (1974).Google Scholar
  16. [Kahn and MacQueen 76]
    G. Kahn and D. MacQueen. Coroutines and networks of parallel processes. Proc. IFIP '77, 993–998 (1977).Google Scholar
  17. [Keller 77]
    R.M. Keller. Semantics of parallel program graphs. University of Utah, Dept. of Computer Science, Tech. Rept. UUCS-77-110 (July 1977).Google Scholar
  18. [Keller 78a]
    R.M. Keller. Denotational models for parallel programs with indeterminate operators. In E.J. Neuhold (ed.), Formal description of programming concepts, 337–366, North-Holland (1978).Google Scholar
  19. [Keller 78b]
    R.M. Keller. An approach to determinacy proofs. University of Utah, Dept. of Computer Science, Tech. Rept. UUCS-78-102 (March 1978).Google Scholar
  20. [Keller 78c]
    R.M. Keller. Sentinels: A concept for multiprocess coordination. University of Utah, Dept. of Computer Science, Tech. Rept. UUCS-78-104 (June 1978).Google Scholar
  21. [Keller, Lindstrom, and Patil 79]
    R.M. Keller, G. Lindstrom, and S. Patil. A loosely-coupled applicative multi-processing system. AFIPS Proc. (June 1979).Google Scholar
  22. [Keller, Lindstrom, and Patil 80]
    R.M. Keller, G. Lindstrom, and S. Patil. Data-flow concepts for hardware design. Digest of papers, IEEE Compoon 80, 105–111 (Feb. 1980).Google Scholar
  23. [Keller 80a]
    Divide and CONCer: Data structuring aspects of applicative multiprocessing. Manuscript submitted for publication (March 1980).Google Scholar
  24. [Keller 80b]
    Semantics and applications of function graphs. Manuscript submitted for publication (March 1980).Google Scholar
  25. [Keller and Lindstrom 80a]
    R.M. Keller and G. Lindstrom. Hierarchical analysis of a distributed evaluator. Manuscript submitted for publication (March 1980).Google Scholar
  26. [Keller and Lindstrom 80b]
    R.M. Keller and G. Lindstrom. Programming paradigms in a graph-based Lisp extension. Manuscript submitted for publication (March 1980).Google Scholar
  27. [Keller, et al. 80]
    FGL Programmer's guide. Internal memorandum, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah (March 1980).Google Scholar
  28. [Manna and Vuillemin 72]
    Z. Manna and J. Vuillemin. Fixpoint approach to the theory of computation. CACM, 15, 7, 528–536 (July 1972).Google Scholar
  29. [Nori 79]
    A.K. Nori. A storage reclamation scheme for AMPS. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah (Dec. 1979).Google Scholar
  30. [O'Donnell 77]
    M. O'Donnell. Computing in systems described by equations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 58 (1977).Google Scholar
  31. [Petri 66]
    C.A. Petri. Communication with automata. Supplement 1 to Tech. Rept. RADC-TR-65-377. Griffiss Air Force Base, New York (1966).Google Scholar
  32. [Ritchie and Thompson 75]
    D.M. Ritchie and K. Thompson. The Unix time-sharing system. CACM, 17, 7, 365–381 (July 1975).Google Scholar
  33. [Savitch and Stimson 79]
    W.J. Savitch and M.J. Stimson. Time bounded random access machines with parallel processing. JACM, 26, 1, 103–118 (Jan. 1979).Google Scholar
  34. [Scott 76]
    D. Scott. Data types as lattices. SIAM J. Comp., 5, 3, 522–587 (Sept. 1976).Google Scholar
  35. [Schwarz 77]
    J. Schwarz. Using annotations to make recursion equations behave. Res. Rept. 43, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh (Sept. 1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Keller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations