#fork and deterministic resumption of the resulting process

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Feb 5 18:15:31 UTC 2008

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>> [BTW, I'm gonna drop out of this thread since it's clear that there is 
>> too much opposition for such a change to get into Squeak. Which is 
>> fine by me - I'll wait until you will get bitten in some really cruel 
>> and unusual ways and at that point you might be ready to understand 
>> why this fix is valuable. Personally, I think that changes that take 
>> out an unusual case of non-determinism like here are always worth it - 
>> if behavior is deterministic you can test it and fix it. If it's not 
>> you might get lucky a hundred times in a row. And in the one critical 
>> situation it will bite you].
> Well, you should give us a bit more than a few hours ;) Until now most 
> posters did not even understand the proposal.

That's part of the reason why I won't pursue these changes here. To me 
these changes are just as important as the ones that I posted for Delay 
and Semaphore. However, unless one understands the kinds of problems 
that are caused by the current code it is pointless to argue that fixing 
them is important - I'm sure that unless people had been bitten by Delay 
and Semaphore we would have the same kinds of debates with all sorts of 
well-meant advise on how you "ought" to write your code ;-)

[The obvious problem with this advice is that these fixes are not 
necessarily only to fix *my* code but that of *other* people. I only got 
started down this path after I saw similar patterns with three different 
sets of author initials on them. In other words, the problem is far more 
than any individuals shortcoming and fixing it in general means that it 
will be fixed for any new people working on our projects]

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list