Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

Manu turkeyman at
Fri Nov 16 01:32:33 PST 2012

On 15 November 2012 17:17, Andrei Alexandrescu <
SeeWebsiteForEmail at> wrote:

> On 11/15/12 1:08 AM, Manu wrote:
>> On 14 November 2012 19:54, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at <mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@**<SeeWebsiteForEmail at>
>> >>
>> wrote:
>>     Yah, the whole point here is that we need something IN THE LANGUAGE
>>     DEFINITION about atomicLoad and atomicStore. NOT IN THE
>> I won't outright disagree, but this seems VERY dangerous to me.
>> You need to carefully study all popular architectures, and consider that
>> if the language is made to depend on these primitives, and the
>> architecture doesn't support it, or support that particular style of
>> implementation (fairly likely), than D will become incompatible with a
>> huge number of architectures on that day.
> All contemporary languages that are serious about concurrency support
> atomic primitives one way or another. We must too. There's no two ways
> about it.

I can't resist... D may be serious about the *idea* of concurrency, but it
clearly isn't serious about concurrency yet. shared is a prime example of
We do support atomic primitives 'one way or another'; there are intrinsics
on all compilers. Libraries can use them.
Again, this thread seemed to be about urgent action... D needs a LOT of
work on it's concurrency model, but something of an urgent fix to make a
key language feature more useful needs to leverage what's there now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list