On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:25:55 -0400, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> phil hunt wrote: >> > Yes, find solutions. Don't find dangerous dead-ends that look like >> > solutions but which will give you lots of trouble. >> If concurrency is a dead end, why do the programs that provide >> the most sophisticated services of any in the world rely on it >> so heavily? > >I don't know what Phil is saying, but I'm not calling concurrency a >dead end.
In general it isn't. However, in many programs, it might be, in that by using it you might end up with a very complex program that fails unpredictably and if hard to debug: if you get in that situation, you may have to start again, in which case your previous work will have been a dead end. (Actually I would suggest that knowing when to throw something away and start again is something that differentiates between good and bad programmers). >I'm calling the tools available in most programming >languages for dealing with it primitive. > >We need better tools. I agree. -- Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
