One year of Go

[retard]

Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:53:14 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:07 -0500, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: [ . . . ]
>> The lack of generics and dangerous concurrency are much bigger issues.
>> If D can actually be shown to be a useful concurrent language, instead
>> of the buggy and incomplete mess it is now, then it might have
>> something to crow about.
> 
> What do you see as wrong with the Go model for concurrency?
> 
> I find the process/message-passing approach infinitely easier than
> shared-memory multithreading with all its needs for locks, monitors,
> semaphores or lock-free programming.  True operating systems will need
> these latter techniques, but surely they are operating system level ones
> and should never have to appear in application code?

There's also the software transactional memory technology.