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? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
