Synchronized classes have no public members

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 08:55:26 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>
> I have to agree here. I think synchronized classes are of very 
> little use, especially because they don't "cast away" shared in 
> a useful way. It still has to be done manually. I think we 
> should remove them. Synchronized methods should also be removed 
> in my eyes. Making each and every object bigger by one pointer 
> just for the sake of a few synchronized methods doesn't seem to 
> be a good trade off to me. The entire synchronized methods give 
> the user the feeling that he simply slaps synchronized on his 
> class / method and then its thread safe and he doesn't have to 
> care about threads anymore. In the real world this is far from 
> true however. So synchronized methods and classes just give a 
> false sense of thread safety and should rather be removed.

Actually, I once fell foul of this wrong impression of thread 
safety via 'synchronized'. I found a different solution and 
dropped synchronized.