Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > Being multithreaded is not difficult, impossible, or bad as such. > It's the make-believe that we can make all data automagically both > shared and safe that is folly. Data sharing (also known as code > synchronization) should be explicit; explicitly controlled by the > programmer. Exactly. The intention behind the proposal to do auto-locking is praiseworth - to make the programmers life easier. However, the suggested solution is more akin to killing him with kindness. -- Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight ... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight ... Alan Burlison
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight ... Steven W McDougall
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight ... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Thre... Steven W McDougall
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight ... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads(m... raptor
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Thre... Chaim Frenkel
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Glenn King
- Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads Jarkko Hietaniemi
- Alan Burlison