Hello Leandro,
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 get the impression, from what little I known about threading, that it is
likely you are under estimating the complexity of the threading problem.
I get the feeling that *most* non-experts do (either that, or they just assume
it more complex than they want to deal with).
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.
You are crazy! processes+IPC only works well if either the OS supports very
fast IPC (IIRC none do aside from shared memory and now we are back where
we started) or the processing between interaction is very long.
Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where it's
all going.
