On Oct 22, 2011, at 1:32 PM, opinali wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2011 12:43:17 AM UTC-4, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, opinali <opi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now you come to us and tell that FJ, which is basically the next chapter of > the same book, written by the same authors and basically in the same style, > is some piece of junk. Oh and by the way you authored a competing book. > > He also authored a competing framework, which he recommends as the only > alternative to Fork/Join at the end of his article. > > Well, above I was using "book" as a metaphor for "framework" :) but it's also > nice to remember JCIP, which is *THE* modern book about applied/practical > concurrent programming - if anybody says that book is also "academic", it's > crazy talk. > > The single serious criticism I've ever heard about j.u.c. and the continuing > work of JSR-166, is that it furthers the paradigm of shared-memory > concurrency. But, like it or not, it's the appropriate thing to do at the > level of the JavaSE platform and Java Language.
It is an appropriate thing to do if you understand impacts on hardware and dynamic vs static (one time assignment models) impacts on scalability. Regards, Kirk -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
