4 ms·
Lets be clear here; the book sets itself up as a way to gain understanding of multiprocessor programming, in a way that promotes skilled reasoning that is appli
by Normal_gaussian 1y ago
Lets be clear here; the book sets itself up as a way to gain understanding of multiprocessor programming, in a way that promotes skilled reasoning that is applicable across many subdomains. In many places it points out that you should avoid implementing constructs yourself, but instead use a library/language/system provided construct. It specifically calls this out for mutexes.
The book is quite clearly about concurrency in general, and not for a specific platform. The author of this article has set up a straw man to facilitate the writing and marketing of an otherwise moderately interesting article on futexes.
Personally I find the approach taken by this article more than a little distasteful - presenting from a point of exaggerated conflict is both tiresome and likely to confuse. This article could easily have been written from the perspective "what TAoMP doesn't tell you" and in that vein be taken a lot more collaboratively.
Of course it doesn't escape me that this blog is new, this article was posted by Phil, and Phil has promoted one of their other articles before.
- viega 1y agoI wrote the article; it was motivated by reading the book, which to my estimation is not well aimed for either academics or practitioners. That's a problem across a big chunk of academia right now, and I hear it not just from industry who would like to have people more prepared coming out of college, but from masters students who realize that they're not learning what they want to be good. So in no way was it meant to be a strawman around a "hey, learn about the futex!" post (as evidenced by other complaints at the end of things lacking). The fact is, I was disappointed enough with the book, that I put aside another post I was writing for it. But as for Phil, we did work together several years ago, and he reads my stuff. I didn't just start writing, and have never had problems finding an audience in the past, Phil or not.
- f1shy 1y agoPlease think about removing the “2025” footer, as it takes almost half my screen on the phone if I put it horizontal. I had to switch to read mode. I suppose is ok, but I assume the article is to be read…
- viega 1y agoYeah, a few other people have mentioned this too; I looked and it is indeed abysmal. I'm not the person responsible for the layout, but I will make sure it gets fixed before posting anything else, even if I have to go tweak it myself.
- nickelpro 1y agoYou're right. I had students complain about this all the time at both the undergrad and grad level, that academic material often seems like it's teaching them wrong as a joke. The correct way to teach material at the collegiate level is to teach it correctly. Useful lies and omissions are for grade school. Where material is simplified for narrative clarity, it should be in a framing that immediately points to the materials for the more fully correct information.
- chillingeffect 1y agoYeah the part about not even calling the previous sysv style a dinosaur bc it implies it was once mighty is like standing on the shoulders of giants and pooping on their heads. A little humility is all that is required.
- viega 1y agoFair. That was meant as tongue in cheek-- sysv was impressive for its day, and its day lasted a long time. I appreciate that not everyone loves my style of humor, but I know when I read things with similar styles, it keeps me more engaged with the material. Still, I am not trying to make jokes at the expense of actual people, so I'll take the note and try to avoid, thanks.