Concurrency architecture for D2

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 15:32:52 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
> 
>> I think we are now in the position of defining a solid set of 
>> concurrency primitives for D. This follows many months of mulling over 
>> models and options.
>>
>> It would be great to open the participation to the design as broadly 
>> as possible, but I think it's realistic to say we won't be able to get 
>> things done on the newsgroup. When we discuss a topic around here, 
>> there's plenty of good ideas but also the inevitable bikeshed 
>> discussions, explanations being asked, explanations being given, and 
>> other sources of noise. We simply don't have the time to deal with all 
>> that - the time is short and we only have one shot at this.
>>
>> That's why I'm thinking of creating a mailing list or maybe another 
>> group for this. Any ideas on what would be the best approach? I also 
>> want to gauge interest from threading experts who'd like to 
>> participate. Please advise: (a) whether you would like to participate 
>> to the design; (b) keep discussions on the general group; (c) create a 
>> separate newsgroup; (d) create a mailing list. The latter would have 
>> open enrollment.
> 
> I think it should be as open as possible. If done in a separate smaller 
> group, it may be a good idea to post reports to the general newsgroup 
> more or less regularly so that those who cannot participate in the 
> detailed discussions have an idea of where it's going, and also to get 
> more general input.

That's obviously the best way to go, but there are a couple of 
circumstances that make that more difficult.

1. Chapter drafts will be the basis for discussion, but understandably 
the publisher does not allow me to freely distribute them.

2. Time. There are regulars on this group that have a "when in doubt, 
make them sweat" policy. I think it's a very good and gainful attitude 
for everyone involved, and I generally enjoy discussing this or that 
idea because it helps me and others gain a better understanding, but 
this time there won't be much time for discussions of the form:

a) Poster: "Subtle issue X sounds like a bad idea. I don't agree with it."

b) <Long argumentation back and forth.>

c) Poster: "I stay unconvinced." or "That makes sense."

There will be very little time for anything like this, particularly if 
explaining X requires a fair amount of background building.

Building a shared vision is very difficult among only a small group of 
people, and doing so for a larger group will be an enormous drag. I feel 
very lucky that Walter and I share views most of the time (except, of 
course, when he's wrong :o)).

> About the bikeshed issue, I'm not sure how much those bikeshed 
> discussions are slowing down the more important ones, but they often 
> start from legitimate real, often syntactic, issues. Those discussions 
> shouldn't be avoided just because everyone has an opinion. But perhaps 
> regular reports to the general newsgroup would help confining them there.
> 
> I'd be in favor of creating a newsgroup for concurrency, and I'll 
> probably want to participate a little too, although I'm not sure how 
> much yet.

OK, let's see what Walter thinks.


Andrei