• Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Nov 13 2010

Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:

retard Wrote:

 Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:53:14 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:07 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: [ . . . ]
 The lack of generics and dangerous concurrency are much bigger issues.
 If D can actually be shown to be a useful concurrent language, instead
 of the buggy and incomplete mess it is now, then it might have
 something to crow about.


 What do you see as wrong with the Go model for concurrency?
 
 I find the process/message-passing approach infinitely easier than
 shared-memory multithreading with all its needs for locks, monitors,
 semaphores or lock-free programming.  True operating systems will need
 these latter techniques, but surely they are operating system level ones
 and should never have to appear in application code?


 There's also the software transactional memory technology.


... which is an interesting idea with some fundamental problems (possibly
solvable).  There was a series of articles on this in ACM Communications about
a year ago.  I'll have to dig up the articles for specifics though.