Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Coverage of multitasking
Message-ID: <6291@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 19 Aug 89 18:51:48 GMT
References: <12126@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 21

From article <12126@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>, by rudolf@neptune.uucp (Jim Rudolf):
>>...Couldn't it be the case that teaching parallel programming
>>second to sequential is putting blinkers on students. Is it not
>>possible that by teaching them to think of parallel algorithms first you
>>may get a whole new set of novel answers to programming problems ?
> 
> I agree with Jon in concept but not with this particular example.  The
> way people learn things best is to compare them to things they already know
> or have experienced.  So in the case of teaching parallel algorithms, I
> tend to believe that most people think sequentially, and have a difficult
> time with parallel concepts.  

    Which they can compare to things they already know or have experienced;
    practically all social activity is an example of parallel computation.
    Corporations get the job done by hiring lots of little sequential
    processors and getting them to perform parallel computation.  On what
    basis do you believe that parallel concepts cannot be (as opposed to
    "haven't been in the past") explained in a natural manner?


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu