4 ms·
It seems like your complaint is "shitty programmers will still do it wrong". Does this "solve" the concurrency problem so that the most craptastic of copy-past
by jbri 15y ago
It seems like your complaint is "shitty programmers will still do it wrong".
Does this "solve" the concurrency problem so that the most craptastic of copy-pasters can write high-performance concurrent code? Hell no. But it never pretended to in the first place, so that's pretty much irrelevant.
It's like saying that doing graphics processing in dedicated hardware is bad because a lot of programmers are awful at coding 3D graphics.
Even if you look at this just as a convenience for compiler writers, this would significantly improve the performance for anything that does do transactional memory properly.
- pjscott 15y agoIt's also a very useful primitive for people writing shared data structures, like concurrent hash tables or multiple-producer, multiple-consumer priority queues.
- jerf 15y agoThe problem with C arrays is not that shitty programmers get them wrong; the problem with C arrays is that only programming gods walking amongst men get them right. Managing effects in a language without any support for it, and decades of work put into making effects easier to implicitly apply without even having to think about it, is at least as hard. There's more to the programming difficulty scale than "shitty" and "competent" and it's not a good idea to count on any programming technique that can only be used by the gods amongst men... even if you are one! (Writing raw string-concatenation-based HTML output safely is another example. No, you can't do it correctly in a large code base without help. Even if you are that smart, you aren't that superhumanly diligent.)