Bartosz Milewski Missing post

[BCS]

Hello Leandro,

> Jason House, el 28 de mayo a las 08:45 me escribiste:
> 
>> I'm really surprised by the lack of design discussion in this thread.
>> It's amazing how there can be huge bursts of discussion on which
>> keyword to use (e.g. manifest constants), but then complete silence
>> about major design decisions like thread safety that defines new
>> transitive states and a bunch of new keywords. The description even
>> made parallels to the (previously?) unpopular const architecture.
>> 
> I just find the new "thread-aware" design of D2 so complex, so twisted
> that I don't even know where to start. I think the solution is way
> worse than the problem here. That's why I don't comment at all.

I get the impression, from what little I known about threading, that it is 
likely you are under estimating the complexity of the threading problem. 
I get the feeling that *most* non-experts do (either that, or they just assume 
it more complex than they want to deal with).

> I think D duplicate functionality. For "safe" concurrency I use
> processes and IPC (I have even more guarantees that D could ever give
> me). That's all I need. I don't need a huge complexity in the language
> for that. And I think D2 concurrency model is still way too low level.

You are crazy! processes+IPC only works well if either the OS supports very 
fast IPC (IIRC none do aside from shared memory and now we are back where 
we started) or the processing between interaction is very long.

Everything is indicating that shared memory multi-threading is where it's 
all going.