Paper Details

%T Life of occam\-Pi
%A Peter H. Welch
%E Peter H. Welch, Frederick R. M. Barnes, Jan F. Broenink, Kevin Chalmers, Jan Bækgaard Pedersen, Adam T. Sampson
%B Communicating Process Architectures 2013
%X This paper considers some questions prompted by a brief
   review of the history of computing. Why is programming so
   hard? Why is concurrency considered an \[dq]advanced\[dq]
   subject? What\[rs]s the matter with Objects? Where did all
   the Maths go? In searching for answers, the paper looks at
   some concerns over fundamental ideas within object
   orientation (as represented by modern programming
   languages), before focussing on the concurrency model of
   communicating processes and its particular expression in the
   occam family of languages. In that focus, it looks at the
   history of occam, its underlying philosophy (Ockham\[rs]s
   Razor), its semantic foundation on Hoare\[rs]s CSP, its
   principles of process oriented design and its development
   over almost three decades into occam\-pi (which blends in
   the concurrency dynamics of Milner\[rs]s pi\-calculus). Also
   presented will be an urgent need for rationalisation \-
   occam\-pi is an experiment that has demonstrated significant
   results, but now needs time to be spent on careful
   review and implementing the conclusions of that review.
   Finally, the future is considered. In particular, is there a
   future?

If you have any comments on this database, including inaccuracies, requests to remove or add information, or suggestions for improvement, the WoTUG web team are happy to hear of them. We will do our best to resolve problems to everyone's satisfaction.

Copyright for the papers presented in this database normally resides with the authors; please contact them directly for more information. Addresses are normally presented in the full paper.