[concurrency-interest] Nice video interview with Tim HarrisandSimon Peyton-Jones

Kimo Crossman kimo at webnetic.net
Thu Dec 28 14:00:43 EST 2006

I agree if you are in the middle of a memory transaction which performs I/O, there seems to be no way to rollback
on the lock question below - they have argued that the solution is composible so that may possibly help some lock situations.


From: concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu [mailto:concurrency-interest-bounces at cs.oswego.edu] On Behalf Of Joshua Bloch
Sent: 2006 December 28 10:03
To: Brian Goetz
Cc: Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu; dholmes at ieee.org
Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Nice video interview with Tim HarrisandSimon Peyton-Jones


Hmmm.  I remember people bitching about GC performance, but not usability.  I'm saying that the transaction model is not as easy to program to as it appears, and it does not free you from thinking about locks (in my experience with Encina and Camelot).  Did people bitch about the usability of GC? 


On 12/28/06, Brian Goetz <brian at quiotix.com> wrote: 

On the other hand, people said the same thing about garbage collection.

> I too have my doubts.  I programmed general purpose transaction systems
> of an earlier era (Camelot and Encina, for the terminally curious), and 
> they're harder to program in practice than they appear in theory.  Of
> course the analogy between these systems and STMs is imperfect, but not
> entirely bogus, I think.

Unrelated unfortunate observation: There's snow on my driveway :( 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20061228/089d03e5/attachment.html 

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list