
\documentstyle{article}
 
\begin{document}
 
\section{General Comments on ``HPCC and Java''.  DBC, 03/08/96}

\begin{itemize}

\item
Section 6 about compilation issues is important.  If Rice can make a
plausible case that Java compilers will eventually attain the
efficiency close to C compilers (as Sun promise us) the project
looks plausible.  If that doesn't happen the whole idea of parallel
HP Java looks lame.


\item
Texas (sect 1.6) and Indiana (sects 1.6, 3.1) both downplay the
importance of data parallelism (to be fair, they only say that
adding language extensions to support data parallelism is a bad
idea).

This seems counterproductive.  I would be more comfortable if we were
embracing data parallelism.  Once we've convinced ourselves that Java
is fast, there's no reason not to do number-crunching in it.


\item
Some vision (if we have one) for applications of HP Java probably
ought to go before ``Suitable Models of Parallel Computing''.


\item
In ``Suitable Models of\ldots'' the most obvious suitable model is the
conservative one of straightforward message passing between processes
implemented as applets (say), with class libraries for channels (or
something).  This can be made more interesting by emphasizing that the
processes are dynamically loaded onto Java servers, or cooperating Web
servers (or something) in a heterogeonous network, with run-time
creation of extra remote applets as they are needed (or something).

This is not to downplay the parallel object ideas from Texas, which may
well be more interesting in the long term.  But it isn't clear to me
that all of us can operate in that way.

Maryland contribution to 7.4.1 is also relevant to this section?


\item
Section 3 absorbed into section 4?


\item
Merge sections 5 and 6?


\item
We definitely need something in section 7.3, ``Task parallelism
and Java''.  Fortran-M-like channels would be nice.


\item
The Maryland contributions: 7.4.1 about itinerant processes seems to be
defining or extending a ``Suitable Model of Parallel Computing''.
Should move it into the appropriate earlier section?

The Maryland contributions 7.4.2 and 7.4.3 seem to be closely
related to what ought to be in 7.3.


\item
The division between ``low-level'' and ``high-level'' runtime issues
isn't particularly clear.  At the moment it isn't obvious that
the contents of section 7 are at a higher level than section 8.

\end{itemize}

\end{document}

