Skip to main content

5. Conclusion

Since the system described in this paper has not been implemented, I have no clearly demonstrable conclusions nor any performance reports. Instead, I conclude with four openly subjective claims.

  1. The interprocess communication system described in Section 2 is simpler and more general than most existing systems of equivalent power and is more powerful than most intra time-sharing system communication systems currently available.

  2. Time-sharing systems structured like the model in Section 2 should be studied by designers of time-sharing systems who may see a computer network in their future, as structure seems to enable joining a computer network with a minimum of difficulty.

  3. As computer networks become more common, remote interprocess communication systems like the one described in Section 3 should be studied. The system currently being developed for ARPA is a step in the wrong direction, being addressed, in my opinion, more to communication between monitors than to communication between processes and consequently subverting convenient resource sharing.

  4. The application of the system as described in Section 4 is much simpler to implement and more powerful than the system currently being constructed for the ARPA Network, and I suggest that implementation of my method be seriously considered for adoption by the ARPA Network.