Michael there is no problem. discussion is also good. Dogma or trolling would be boring :)
On Mar 23, 2009, at 12:42 AM, Michael van der Gulik wrote: > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
