awishformore Wrote: > > I completely agree with everything you said and I really dislike how D2 > currently seems to virtually impose an application architecture based on > the message passing model if you don't want to circumvent and thus break > the entire type system. While I do agree that message passing makes a > lot of sense as the default choice, there also has to be well > thought-out and extensive support for the shared memory model if D2 is > really focusing on the concurrency issue as much as it claims. > > Personally, I've found hybrid architectures where both models are > combined as needed to be the most flexible and best performing approach > and there is no way a language touted to be a systems language should > impose one model over the other and stop the programmer from doing > things the way he wants.
I wouldn't worry--the modules in core will always provide the low-level control that you're looking for. As for message passing, I think it should be the default choice but not the only choice. Things like futures are a reasonable addition to Phobos as well.
