On 02/03/2008, nicolas cellier <ncellier at ifrance.com> wrote:
> Igor Stasenko a écrit :
>
> > On 02/03/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>  >
>
>
> Yes but the spirit is also to build a VM able to hide some low level
>  details like memory allocation...
>  Smalltalk programmers are released from these release problems...
>  Free to concentrate on higher level problems.
>
>  Wouldn't this apply to threads too?
>
It is, but developers should be free in choice whether use locking
semantics or use vats/islands/E.
Simply because there is no single, ultimately best solution for all
kinds of parallel computing.

>
>  Nicolas
>
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.