synchronized (this[.classinfo]) in druntime and phobos

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 5/30/12 2:40 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> Le 30/05/2012 00:50, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
>> On 5/29/12 2:59 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> On 29-05-2012 23:31, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/12 1:32 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> I already did some comment about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Making any object synchronization is a very bad design decision. It is
>>>>> deadlock prone, it is liquid lock prone, it cause an overhead on any
>>>>> object, and even worse, it is useless most of the time as D promote
>>>>> thread locality (which is very good).
>>>>
>>>> Actually I think such a characterization is superficial and biased to
>>>> the extent it becomes wrong.
>>>
>>> Really ? I think he's spot on.
>>
>> I'd be glad to think the same. Good arguments might be helpful. So far
>> I've seen exaggerated statements and posturing. Such are entertaining
>> but are of limited effectiveness in furthering a point.
>>
>
> I have provided link in other posts to document the point. Not to
> mention that my personal experience back up this too.
>
> I don't like what you are doing here, because you don't provide anything
> and simply discard what don't fit the current design. For instance, you
> didn't even considered the liquid lock problem.

It would help if I knew what a liquid lock is. The first page of Google 
search doesn't help.

I'm only discarding content-less posturing a la "worst idea ever", 
"useless", "very bad design decision" etc. Such is just immature. It is 
encouraging you have started sending content (the msdn paper), thanks, 
and please keep it coming.


Thanks,

Andrei