Jon Harrop wrote:
Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs...
I don't believe you have removed any concurrency bugs. I think you just pushed
them around a bit.
I couldn't agree more. If you 'avoid' concurrency by writing your own
'sequential' event handling code, you have not
On Monday 19 May 2008 15:09:04 Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
On the contrary: Shared memory parallelization has the fundamental
disadvantage that you cannot reason about it,
I have been reasoning about shared memory parallel programs for many years.
and so the only way of checking the quality of the
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two problems with what you wrote in this context:
1. You are replying to a thread about shared-memory parallelism with a
discussion of sequential concurrency, which is completely different.
2. You keep saying
If the answer is STM, please show me some non-trivial application that
uses it, preferably
in an impure language.
yes, that would be interesting to see. presumably the example would
have to come from Haskell, Clojure, or classically some SQL database?
i am under the impression that STM is
