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.
