Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste: > I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread. > It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which keyword > to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence about major > design decisions like thread safety that defines new transitive states > and a bunch of new keywords. The description even made parallels to the > (previously?) unpopular const architecture.
I just find the new "thread-aware" design of D2 so complex, so twisted that I don't even know where to start. I think the solution is way worse than the problem here. That's why I don't comment at all. I think D duplicate functionality. For "safe" concurrency I use processes and IPC (I have even more guarantees that D could ever give me). That's all I need. I don't need a huge complexity in the language for that. And I think D2 concurrency model is still way too low level. I would like D2 better if it was focussed on macros for example. > Maybe people are waiting for Walter to go through all the hard work of > implementing this stuff before complaining that it's crap and > proclaiming Walter should have done in the first place? No, I don't see any point in saying what I said above, because I don't think anything will change. If I didn't like some little detail, that could worth discussing because it has any chance to change Walter/Bartoz mind, but saying "I think all the model is way too complex" don't help much IMHO =) -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------