Jason Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> It's not *that* hard to write a large, scalable, concurrent systems using
>> Processes and Semaphores. Sure, at times it can be difficult with horrible
>> bugs that take a decade to manifest, but if you use consistent patterns and
>> encapsulate complex behaviour well, it is quite tractable.
>>     
>
> This is the second time I've seen you express this opinion.  It is
> irrelevant whether *you* think it's easy/tractable/etc. or not.  The
> empirical data is in: it's really really hard to do.  And languages
> like Erlang show it is entirely too complex for no real gain.
>
> People were (and still are I'm sure) expressing this same thing with
> manual memory management.  "Oh, it's not that hard, these guys just
> don't use the right technique/are lazy/etc" and it that's just not the
> case.  The fact is, with both MM and concurrency, both of these models
> ruin composability.  That's the point.
>
>
>   

Hi,

Let's drop the flawed analogy with manual memory management shall we. It 
doesn't map very well at all as an example.

Unless you're claiming some advancement in process concurrency that is 
similar to garbage collection.

So you're going after an Erlang model? Is that it?

I've seen no cleaner solution presented by any of you. How is it 
cleaner? Be specific please.

All the best,

Peter William Lount
[ | peter at smalltalk dot org ] value.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080706/2af788e7/attachment.htm