Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

If looking for a different perspective, clarifying this in the new question, but the topic remains the same, is this going to be considered intrinsically a duplicate (from the point of view of the majority of the stack overflow posters)?

If asking such question is ok, what is the best way to indicate the intent for non-duplication?


In order to provide more context, here is a specific question.

The author asked for clarification of the difference between the message passing and the memory sharing techniques. The accepted answer states, in summary, that with shared memory, a datum can be modified simultaneously by logically parallel processes, while with message passing, there is no intrinsic concurrency. Which is true, from a certain point of view.

However, in distributed computing, memory coherency protocols are in the end implemented using message passing over network channels, with distributed locking, etc. Message queues do not always eliminate concurrency, because the processes still usually affect each others state in what they believe to be consistent way. For example, a simple command interpreter can be implemented on top of message queuing, and the commands may be sent as part of some transaction executed from the conversant process. So, high level interactions may always require design for concurrency. On the other hand, low level interactions always involve some kind of message passing over buses, even more pronounced with NUMA architectures, and the atomicity of aligned loads and stores are guaranteed. So, even as low level interactions, the distinction is still blurry to me.

There may be many possible ways to clarify this, I know, but with this thoughts in mind, I am in need of additional clarifications with more precise definition of the distinction.

share|improve this question
I think this is impossible to answer without more context and more specifics. Do you have a particular duplicate question in mind, and what is the different perspective – psubsee2003 Dec 9 '12 at 17:57
@psubsee2003: I just added pointer to the question and description of my exact problem. – simeonz Dec 9 '12 at 18:25
up vote 2 down vote accepted

I believe you'd need to:

  • restate the question in the way that makes your perspective clear
  • link to the original question
  • very important: explain why the existing answers/solutions aren't satisfactory, and no, "I don't like them" isn't a valid explanation. You'll need a real, practical, technical (or design, or whatever) argument.
  • as always, explain what you've tried/researched yourself and why those aren't satisfactory/how they don't work.

With that, you'll have a reasonable chance of your question being well accepted as an independent question.

Unless, of course, there's yet another related question with answers that match your perspective too :)

share|improve this answer
You need to state more than just the previous answers don't work for you. IF that was the only issue then he should be putting a bounty on the question to get a more involved response. He needs to indicate what specifications in the question differ from his requirements; what additional constraints, requirements, problems, etc. he needs to deal with that differentiate it from the previous question, reagardless of the answers to that question. – Servy Dec 10 '12 at 4:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .