Why I (Still) Won't Use D
Tim Burrell
tim at timburrell.net
Fri Mar 28 12:40:53 PDT 2008
Sean Kelly wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1 at digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>> It's been shown fairly conclusively that STL-conformant COW strings
>>> are incompatible with multithreaded programs,
>> This is what I was alluding to when I said that the C++ community knows
>> there are fundamental problems with C++ and multithreading, and that C++
>> const is one of the culprits. I don't think C++0x addresses this at all.
>
> It doesn't. Frankly, I think the multithreading features in C++ 0x are too
> little too late. They'll probably make maintaining old code a bit easier, and
> perhaps buy the language an extra five years of mainstream relevance while
> people struggle to make it work, but the changes still only bring C++ up to
> where Java was when JSR-133 was published some five (?) years ago. And
> by the time compilers are 0x compliant I wouldn't be half surprised for the
> average PC to contain 8 cores and for lock-based programming to be well
> on its way out.
Everyone here seems quick to point the finger at C++0x for not doing
more with working toward good parallel support. But we're not really
addressing the point that even disregarding C++0x, C++ _already_ has WAY
better parallel support than D does via OpenMP (which is available on
nearly every C++ compiler).
Agreed the upcoming C++0x features are pretty lame -- they should have
just merged the OpenMP 3 draft into the C++0x draft, but never the less,
D is really falling way behind here.
When C++0x comes out, combined with OpenMP, D won't even be close to
being a viable language for parallel development... unless of course gdc
can leverage some of gcc's (>= 4.2) OpenMP support maybe?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list