NO. The TymeacDSE product was released after JDK1.7. I took the proof-of-concept I gave Doug and made a professional product out of it. See the article "Is there a better way."
The article was written in 2010 just before the release of JDK1.7. The above comments are for the JDK1.9 release in late 2017. Doug has had some time to improve his comments. Perhaps you should look into the calamity part 2 article to see how well this "framework" with it's internal structure problems performs in JDJ1.8 streams.
First and foremost: I’m a programmer, not a web site developer or professional author. If you don’t like my web site or writing style, too bad. The explicit trademark specification came from legal advice. If you want to criticize something I do well, then criticize my software. I maintain tree active open-source products on SourceForge:
The grist of the three articles is
1. This framework doesn’t belong in core Java.
2. This framework should not be the parallel engine that drives all parallel computing (streams etc.) in Java.
3. It is still failing as a parallel engine no matter what the engineers do.
A little history may help.
In 2010, I submitted a proof-of-concept to the good professor showing that scatter-gather works just as well as what he was proposing for Java7. Since he ignored the proof completely, I took the parallel engine out of a Task Parallel product I maintain and put in the Data Parallel engine. This product is also open-source. It is not suitable for an API since it is a full feature Data Parallel product. It is not for sale. It is, and has always been, open-source. Data Parallel only works well on copious processors, which is why I never bothered offering it before.
The software examples I submitted with the articles (downloadable) are sufficient to prove my points. These are not full benchmarks since that isn’t necessary for an article; they prove the point – sequential is usually faster than the parallel version, etc.
There are seventeen points in the first two articles. Not one person has ever said, “Hey Ed, that’s not true.” The points are accurate. There is no B.S. in any of the articles. I may not have the eloquent style of a professional author (yes I am a little blunt, what else do you expect from a programmer) but I did the best I could. If you want to throw eggs at them, fine. At least be specific about which point you think is wrong.
Intel has TBB. Microsoft TPL. If Java wants a parallel engine then they should have copied the others. Using an academic centric product that is based on dyadic recursive division is not the way into the parallel future for Java.
