On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:30:47PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit : > >On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > > > >>Didier Kryn <[email protected]> writes: > >>>Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit : > >>>>For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it > >>>>in some way, even when it was unnecessary. > >>>I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be > >>>harmless if there's only one. Otherwise better use select()/poll() or > >>>you'll waste time or even dead-lock. It's amazing how the old select() > >>>paradigm is so much better than the modern mutex. I see mutex as an > >>>invention to relieve the programmer from thinking. > >>One of the advantages of having more than one thread of execution > >>running in the same address space is that these can communicate with > >>each other without going through the kernel. And 'a mutex' is just a > >>basic primitive for implementing this. > >nowadays the closures paradigm (basically fifo pipes of pointers to > >stateless functions) is used much more than all that mutex and > >semaphore old stuff. i.e. golang adopted closures since the beginning > >with great success. > > > >ciao > > Don't know what a closure is, although I heard of it long ago on this > list. According to Wikipedia, it is "a record containing a function and its > environment". I'm not sure it is different of a method associated to an > object - there are subtelties here.
That is indeed the way it is implemented in the OO language Sather. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
