3 ms·
Eh, I don't think the author is to be ridiculed. We're all wrong from time to time, I'm wrong in most of what I say, I'm sure you've been wrong on occasions, t
by marginalia_nu 3y ago
Eh, I don't think the author is to be ridiculed. We're all wrong from time to time, I'm wrong in most of what I say, I'm sure you've been wrong on occasions, this is fine.
The author's views on how concurrency works is very common and taught in schools and textbooks, but also quite inadequate.
Instead let's take this opportunity to talk and teach about the JMM and deepen the collective understanding of the many unintuitive behaviors of multi-threaded applications.
- haspok 3y agoMaybe there could be a JMM 2.0 where at least some of the unexpected behaviour is removed. Maybe even at the cost of performance. If something is misunderstood by >99% of the average programmer population then clearly it is not the best solution to the problem.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoIf that many programmers don't understand the JMM, it's because that many programmers haven't looked at it. It is the key to reasoning about Java concurrency. Any other model that is not the JMM is flat out wrong. It is virtually impossible to write correct concurrent Java without understanding the memory model.