The "no gc" crowd

[Dmitry Olshansky]

11-Oct-2013 05:21, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет:
> On 10/10/13 5:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 10, 2013 10:55:49 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/10/13 12:33 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> I honestly don't think we can solve it a different way without
>>>> completely
>>>> redesigning shared. shared is specifically designed such that you
>>>> have to
>>>> either cast it way to do anything with it
>>>
>>> no
>>>
>>>> or write all of your code to
>>>> explicitly work with shared, which is not something that generally
>>>> makes
>>>> sense to do unless you're creating a type whose only value is in being
>>>> shared across threads.
>>>
>>> yes
>>
>> Really? Do you honestly expect the average use of shared to involve
>> creating
>> structs or classes which are designed specifically to be used as shared?
>
> Yes. Data structures that can be shared are ALWAYS designed specifically
> for sharing, unless of course it's a trivial type like int.

This. And exactly the same for immutable. It's interesting how folks 
totally expect complex types (like containers) to meaningfully work with 
all 3 qualifiers.

> Sharing
> means careful interlocking and atomic operations and barriers and stuff.
> You can't EVER expect to obtain all of that magic by plastering "shared"
> on top of your type.
>

Yup.

>
> Andrei
>


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky