On 02/03/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > In short: Less sharing - less contention. More sharing - more contention.
>  >
>  >  If you put 2 points on a line and call them 'no sharing' and 'share
>  >  everything', then
>  >  any system which allows you run on multiple cores and operate over
>  >  single domain (be it single memory or multiple standalone memories) is
>  >  lies somewhere in the middle.
>  >
>  >  You can pick a starting point from where you moving to that golden
>  >  point - from 'share everything' or from 'share nothing'. But it's no
>  >  doubt, no matter from where you started, you will always move towards
>  >  'golden' middle point.
>
>
> But the question is, where do you make your trade offs.  If you take
>  the simple way *for you* then just give access to threading to
>  everyone and let them suffer with the pain of a paradigm too complex
>  to be done correctly.
>
>  If you take the way that's simply for *everyone else* then you put
>  this sharing inside the VM in the places it makes since and hide it
>  from the language level (e.g. how at least Erlang does it)
>
>
I'd vote for *everyone* - put threading control at language side, as
everything else in smalltalk. Any 'magic' should be a code which i can
read and change, placed in image, not in VM.
No-magic is the spirit of smalltalk, after all.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.