digitalmars.D - Re: One year of Go
- Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Nov 13 2010
retard Wrote:Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:53:14 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:07 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: [ . . . ]The lack of generics and dangerous concurrency are much bigger issues. If D can actually be shown to be a useful concurrent language, instead of the buggy and incomplete mess it is now, then it might have something to crow about.
What do you see as wrong with the Go model for concurrency? I find the process/message-passing approach infinitely easier than shared-memory multithreading with all its needs for locks, monitors, semaphores or lock-free programming. True operating systems will need these latter techniques, but surely they are operating system level ones and should never have to appear in application code?
There's also the software transactional memory technology.
... which is an interesting idea with some fundamental problems (possibly solvable). There was a series of articles on this in ACM Communications about a year ago. I'll have to dig up the articles for specifics though.
Nov 13 2010