5 ms·
> It's similar to manual memory management Funny, I used this very analogy about concurrency the other day. I think we live in a manually managed concurrency e
by klabb3 4y ago
> It's similar to manual memory management
Funny, I used this very analogy about concurrency the other day. I think we live in a manually managed concurrency era, because we haven’t entirely figured out the right mix of patterns to get to the point when it makes sense. In the future, I expect all non-low-level languages simply agrees on one or two models, just like RAII and GC solved the manual memory management problem. That, and we still have a lot of bugs from concurrency related matters which we basically have no way to test.
Structured concurrency is most certainly part of the solution, but I there are a few devils in the details that are a lot of work (or careful thought) to get right.
- samsquire 4y agoThanks for your comment. I would really enjoy talking to you more about this. From what you wrote, I agree, we are indeed in an era where concurrency and its notation has yet to settle on an elegant approach. With microservices and distributed systems simultaneous independent execution and ordering and consistency then the problems of concurrency reveal themselves. Do you have any ideas how you would want to define concurrency? What notation would you like to be capable of writing? What is your favourite representation of concurrency? (Such as bash pipelines)