# Re: Ladder a parallel lang? (was: Demarcation)

V

LM> Sorry about responding to such an old posting, but that last sentence
LM> sounds exactly like RLL. In fact, one could implement the RLL runtime
LM> engine so in fact, multiple rungs run in parallel, with the only stipulation
LM> that rungs lower in the ladder that depend upon the results of a prior rung,
LM> must execute after that prior rung.

The LD does not allow to describe algorithm as "a structurized set of logically independent parts"... parts that are constructed by the programmer... Descrete. What should be called "spaghetty code" is a program in the LD. There is no any means in the LD to structurize the algorithm... at all.

And again, it would be more constructive, if somebody makes an alternative definition (or corrects mine).

To those who believe the LD is a parallel language:
Hocus-pocus... Magical and unbeliavable trasformation...
Brilliant invention... Parallel C... (a flourish is being sounded):

main(){ /* standard begin of C-program */
for(;{ /* magical string that converts C into Parallel C (endless loop) */

[ ... Here everybody can put his codes in the parallel C. Syntax of
parallel C and syntax C are the same (power of magic ;-) ... ]

}
}

So, who can pick out any conceptual difference between the LD and the "parallel C"? Well, the parallel C is better than the LD... it allows to structurize your programs via the means of functions (and much more ;-).

LM> Rufus

LM> (oops, random thought to throw out there:

LM> Every (?) so-called "parallel" process has sequential operations within each