> Concurrency is handled badly by most languages because it's a horrible thing to run more than 1 thread per CPU. I'm not sure that's a viable position anymore

> Concurrency is handled badly by most languages because it's a horrible thing to run more than 1 thread per CPU. I'm not sure that's a viable position anymore. > Again, I don't buy the koolaid. Yeah I know it seems like trendy nonsense but the power-wall is real and every chip designer I know has given up on improving single-thread performance anywhere near the same rate we used to. (And yes, I've listened to one of IBM's research scientists discuss this and when asked explicitly what they were up to with POWER6 and he basically they did it because they could, but they didn't see any future beyond that and overall they were going back to focus on parallelism like the POWER architecture had in the previous designs.) > I too have written multithreaded code, and decided the solution was to stop writing multithreaded code. Amen. But again, I don't think that's viable. We need some way to use multi-threads somehow to get the performance we need in future programs. It could be full multiple processes maybe instead, but we'll need something. I think we can both agree that it certainly shouldn't be like it is now.