Concurrent Futures

Joshua Gargus schwa at fastmail.us
Mon Oct 29 21:40:34 UTC 2007


On Oct 29, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> Yes we do, but what prevents others from implementing own locking
> semantics based on direct message sends (not futures)?

What prevents me from using FFI to allocate memory that isn't managed  
by the garbage collector?  Nothing, of course.  But if I create a  
memory leak in this way, it's silly to blame the garbage collector.

I think the analogy is clear, but I'll be explicit... if you  
circumvent a future-based concurrency mechanism by implementing  
locking mechanisms, then it is silly to blame the futures for the  
deadlock that you've created.

Cheers,
Josh



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list