The future of concurrent programming

[David B. Held]

Mike Capp wrote:
> == Quote from Sean Kelly (sean at f4.ca)'s article
> 
>> Transactions are another idea, though the common
>> implementation of software transactional memory
>> (cloning objects and such) isn't really ideal.
> 
> Would genuine compiler guarantees regarding const (or invariant, or final, or
> whatever it's called today) reduce the need for cloning?

Word-based STM doesn't require cloning except when necessary to preserve 
logical consistency, and then it doesn't require whole-object cloning. 
On the other hand, it may not always be as efficient because it only 
knows about words and not objects.  It's all a trade-off.

Dave