On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Antony Blakey <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On 23/03/2009, at 7:37 AM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: > > > > > Smalltalk, the language rather than the implementation, already has > > fantastic support for concurrency. Smalltalkers just don't know how > > to use it. We don't need to rethink the model, we just need to learn > > to use what we have. > > Mutexes and semaphores are hardly 'fantastic'. The state of the art in > support for concurrency is way beyond what Smalltalk provides - > locking is both primitive and generally not scalable. > > Semaphores _are_ fantastic!! Lock-free algorithms are even cooler. The language lends itself to building up higher abstractions. Take for example Collection and all its subclasses; they're screaming out to have parallelised versions made: c := ConcurrentOrderedCollection new. c do: [ :each | ...this part gets executed in parallel...]. The caveat here is that you need to be careful about side-effects. This is just one example. I have some more rudimentary ideas at: http://gulik.pbwiki.com/Parallel+processing. Oh, and sorry to the Pharo guys for keeping this going. Let us know if you don't want threads like this on your list. Gulik. -- http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
