Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2009-12-27 15:32:52 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> said:
I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of
concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over
models and options.
It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly
as possible, but I think it's realistic to say we won't be able to get
things done on the newsgroup. When we discuss a topic around here,
there's plenty of good ideas but also the inevitable bikeshed
discussions, explanations being asked, explanations being given, and
other sources of noise. We simply don't have the time to deal with all
that - the time is short and we only have one shot at this.
That's why I'm thinking of creating a mailing list or maybe another
group for this. Any ideas on what would be the best approach? I also
want to gauge interest from threading experts who'd like to
participate. Please advise: (a) whether you would like to participate
to the design; (b) keep discussions on the general group; (c) create a
separate newsgroup; (d) create a mailing list. The latter would have
open enrollment.
I think it should be as open as possible. If done in a separate smaller
group, it may be a good idea to post reports to the general newsgroup
more or less regularly so that those who cannot participate in the
detailed discussions have an idea of where it's going, and also to get
more general input.
That's obviously the best way to go, but there are a couple of
circumstances that make that more difficult.
1. Chapter drafts will be the basis for discussion, but understandably
the publisher does not allow me to freely distribute them.
2. Time. There are regulars on this group that have a "when in doubt,
make them sweat" policy. I think it's a very good and gainful attitude
for everyone involved, and I generally enjoy discussing this or that
idea because it helps me and others gain a better understanding, but
this time there won't be much time for discussions of the form:
a) Poster: "Subtle issue X sounds like a bad idea. I don't agree with it."
b) <Long argumentation back and forth.>
c) Poster: "I stay unconvinced." or "That makes sense."
There will be very little time for anything like this, particularly if
explaining X requires a fair amount of background building.
Building a shared vision is very difficult among only a small group of
people, and doing so for a larger group will be an enormous drag. I feel
very lucky that Walter and I share views most of the time (except, of
course, when he's wrong :o)).
About the bikeshed issue, I'm not sure how much those bikeshed
discussions are slowing down the more important ones, but they often
start from legitimate real, often syntactic, issues. Those discussions
shouldn't be avoided just because everyone has an opinion. But perhaps
regular reports to the general newsgroup would help confining them there.
I'd be in favor of creating a newsgroup for concurrency, and I'll
probably want to participate a little too, although I'm not sure how
much yet.
OK, let's see what Walter thinks.
Andrei
