Le 30/05/2012 00:50, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 5/29/12 2:59 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-05-2012 23:31, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 5/29/12 1:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
I already did some comment about this.
Making any object synchronization is a very bad design decision. It is
deadlock prone, it is liquid lock prone, it cause an overhead on any
object, and even worse, it is useless most of the time as D promote
thread locality (which is very good).
Actually I think such a characterization is superficial and biased to
the extent it becomes wrong.
Really ? I think he's spot on.
I'd be glad to think the same. Good arguments might be helpful. So far
I've seen exaggerated statements and posturing. Such are entertaining
but are of limited effectiveness in furthering a point.
I have provided link in other posts to document the point. Not to
mention that my personal experience back up this too.
I don't like what you are doing here, because you don't provide anything
and simply discard what don't fit the current design. For instance, you
didn't even considered the liquid lock problem.
