Synchronized classes have no public members

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 09:07:54 UTC, Chris wrote:
> 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.

I also dropped synchronized and use @nogc mutexes instead. I also 
think synchronized methods should be removed. It's also difficult 
to explain: what is a "monitor"? when you write a synchronized { 
} block, which monitor is taken?