Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:50:26 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > Michel Fortin wrote: >> Also keep in mind that we don't really need a shared vision among >> everyone. What's needed is someone who takes the decisions. Discussion >> is only needed to help that person take the right decisions. Although >> consensus among all members certainly boosts the decider >> self-confidence, it is not required, and not necessarily desirable >> either. A consensus among only a few key people is all that is needed, >> and this has little to do with who is allowed to raise issues and >> propose solutions. > > The real problem with a concurrency model is that very few programmers > understand the issues. The failed Java concurrency model is an example > of this shortage. For another, about 5 years ago I attended a panel of > 30 of the top C++ experts in the world to discuss a concurrency model > for C++0x. > > It didn't take long for it to become obvious that exactly two people > understood the issues - Hans Boehm and Herb Sutter. The rest of us sat > there slack-jawed and drooling, asking endless inane questions. I wish I > had the patience Hans and Herb showed in dealing with this. > > Since then I have tried to master this topic, but I don't have much > experience writing complex multithreaded code. So what we need are > people who are experienced with MT code who can evaluate the design to > see if we missed the boat or not. I'd rather not shoot at the moon yet > wind up orbiting some asteroid.
If only 2 of the top 30 c++ experts understand concurrency models, what makes you think that D programming community, mostly consisting of novice/ hobbyist/student programmers have any better luck? There are only a handful of such experts as Sean, Andrei, Bartosz, Brad et al here. The D community is maybe 3 to 4 orders of magnitude smaller than the global C++ community. Only a handful of enterprises use D and there is basically no academic research happening around D.
