[saga-rg] Task model...

[John Shalf]

On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Thilo Kielmann wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:57:22AM -0800, John Shalf wrote:
>> I prefer 4a1 because it is more readable and the implementation would
>> be quite straightforward. It is also a familiar paradigm for any MPI
>> programmers and anyone who has played with various proprietary Async
>> I/O implementations. (its a very familiar and conventional approach)
>>
>> I kind of like 4a2 as well from the standpoint of a C++ programmer
>> (even with Andre's syntax corrections).  However, the resulting
>> bindings will not be very consistent with the approach we would take
>> for Fortran or C bindings (eg. those would likely look more like
>> 4a1). It is not really much more readable than 4a1.  Therefore, I'm
>> uncertain if it is worth fragmenting our approach to bindings in
>> different languages when there is not a clear benefit in terms of
>> readability or implementation complexity.
>
> Taking these arguments together, we should opt for 4a1 !
>   - more readable
>   - closer to Fortran bindings and other archaic languages ;-)

... gotta keep Tom happy. ;-)