The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Models and languages for parallel computation
Open accessAbstract
We survey parallel programming models and languages using six criteria to assess their suitability for realistic portable parallel programming. We argue that an ideal model should by easy to program, should have a software development methodology, should be architecture-independent, should be easy to understand, should guarantee performance, and should provide accurate information about the cost of programs. These criteria reflect our belief that developments in parallelism must be driven by a parallel software industry based on portability and efficiency. We consider programming models in six categories, depending on the level of abstraction they provide. Those that are very abstract conceal even the presence of parallelism at the software level. Such models make software easy to build and port, but efficient and predictable performance is usually hard to achieve. At the other end of the spectrum, low-level models make all of the messy issues of parallel programming explicit (how many threads, how to place them, how to express communication, and how to schedule communication), so that software is hard to build and not very portable, but is usually efficient. Most recent models are near the center of this spectrum, exploring the best tradeoffs between expressiveness and performance. A few models have achieved both abstractness and efficiency. Both kinds of models raise the possibility of parallelism as part of the mainstream of computing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1205
(1999) · Industrial Robot: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ir.1999.04926fae.001 · Cited by 38,662
Communicating Sequential Processes
Hoare, T. (1985) · Cited by 9,016
Handbook of theoretical computer science
Leeuwen, J. V. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,259
Foundations of Logic Programming
Lloyd, J. W. (1984) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-96826-6 · Cited by 4,128
A Bridging Model for Parallel Computation
Valiant, L. G. (1990) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3749740.3749753 · Cited by 3,664
Kung (1982) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.1982.1653825 · Cited by 2,272
Actors: A Model of Concurrent Computation in Distributed Systems
Agha, G. (1986) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2,232
Jaffar, J., & Lassez, J.-L. (1987) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '87 · doi:10.1145/41625.41635 · Cited by 1,597
Parallel Program Design: A Foundation
Chandy, K. M. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,539
LogP: towards a realistic model of parallel computation
Culler, D., Karp, R., Patterson, D., Sahay, A., Schauser, K. E., Santos, E., Subramonian, R., & von Eicken, T. (1993) · Proceedings of the fourth ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming - PPOPP '93 · doi:10.1145/155332.155333 · Cited by 1,496
Cited by
Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00663.x · Cited by 1,386
Kittur, A., Nickerson, J. V., Bernstein, M., Gerber, E., Shaw, A., Zimmerman, J., Lease, M., & Horton, J. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/2441776.2441923 · Cited by 1,034
Metadata
- Authors
- Skillicorn, D. B., & Talia, D.
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-169
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W2155882878
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 25.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Models and languages for parallel computation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/280277.280278
- The paper
- Skillicorn, D. B., & Talia, D. (1998). Models and languages for parallel computation. ACM Computing Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1145/280277.280278
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.