should pure functions accept/deal with shared data?

[Manu]

On 7 June 2012 04:55, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>wrote:

> We could define shared to refuse compilation on odd machines, and THEN
> provide an atomic template with the expected performance of a lock.
>

*sigh* .. my biggest pet peeve with the D community.
ARM and PPC are not 'odd', ARM is the most common consumer architecture in
the world. PPC powers all current gaming consoles and other entertainment
devices.
x86, is only used in PC's, which are losing market share to phones,
tablets, and games devices at a fast and accelerating rate. Even ARM
netbooks/laptops are starting to appear.

I'd really like to see a mental shift within the D community where ARM was
recognised as a 1st class architecture, and factored into EVERY technical
decision, potentially with higher priority than x86 even. The performance
and efficiency requirements of arm and ppc devices is virtually always much
higher than that demanded of x86, and the architectures are slower to begin
with, so they have more to lose.

One could argue features should be designed to be as efficient as possible
for ARM, and architectural work-arounds should be applied to the x86
implementation. x86 users won't notice, arm users will.

</endrant> ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120607/d9f74703/attachment.html>