5 ms·

> Under the semantics described here, Java or C# core classes aren't "thread-safe" either and I'd expect the vast majority of standard libraries to completely f

by badgar 14y ago

> Under the semantics described here, Java or C# core classes aren't "thread-safe" either and I'd expect the vast majority of standard libraries to completely fail the test (potential winners: Clojure using an immutable collection bound on an atom, as they have compare-and-swap semantics; and probably Haskell somehow) Java's standard library includes Doug Lea's famous java.util.concurrent package written as part of JSR 166, which according to (http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=166 http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=166) was finally released in late 2004. Never wrote C#, but I started typing [C# concurrent] into Google and it autocompleted and instantly searched for [C# ConcurrentDictionary], the first result being: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287191.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd287191.aspx .

masklinn 14y ago
> Java's standard library includes Doug Lea's famous java.util.concurrent package written as part of JSR 166 Irrelevant, java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicIntegerArray - which I mentioned — can not under any sensible definition be called a "core collection".
- badgar 14y ago
  The "core collections" - a term you're defining yourself right now however you like, for the record - aren't threadsafe for a reason. They have different performance characteristics in Java! You need two versions of the collections in these languages because of their concurrency and memory models. In Java, using Concurrent/Atomic classes is how you write idiomatic threadsafe code, and it has been for a decade. Bitching because the main list types aren't threadsafe only demonstrates deep, deep ignorance.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Wow, you went way off kilter there mate, I didn't "bitch because the main list types aren't threadsafe", in fact I didn't even emit the slightest criticism (let alone "bitch") on that front as it makes perfect sense, you're the guy getting all butthurt because I note in passing that Java's or C#'s core collections are no safer than Ruby's if you're using them in a stupid manner. Chill and lay off the exclamation point.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- aardvark179 14y ago
  And it highlights the issue that thread safe collections and thread safe objects are very different things. ConcurrentHashMap may be thread safe but putting non atomic Integers in there still leaves you vulnerable to threading problems
  - badgar 14y ago
    > ConcurrentHashMap may be thread safe but putting non atomic Integers in there still leaves you vulnerable to threading problems Yes, thread-safety is hard in these languages. You have to think about code when you write it.

by badgar 14y ago

masklinn 14y ago

> Java's standard library includes Doug Lea's famous java.util.concurrent package written as part of JSR 166 Irrelevant, java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicIntegerArray - which I mentioned — can not under any sensible definition be called a "core collection".

badgar 14y ago
The "core collections" - a term you're defining yourself right now however you like, for the record - aren't threadsafe for a reason. They have different performance characteristics in Java! You need two versions of the collections in these languages because of their concurrency and memory models. In Java, using Concurrent/Atomic classes is how you write idiomatic threadsafe code, and it has been for a decade. Bitching because the main list types aren't threadsafe only demonstrates deep, deep ignorance.
- masklinn 14y ago
  Wow, you went way off kilter there mate, I didn't "bitch because the main list types aren't threadsafe", in fact I didn't even emit the slightest criticism (let alone "bitch") on that front as it makes perfect sense, you're the guy getting all butthurt because I note in passing that Java's or C#'s core collections are no safer than Ruby's if you're using them in a stupid manner. Chill and lay off the exclamation point.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
aardvark179 14y ago
And it highlights the issue that thread safe collections and thread safe objects are very different things. ConcurrentHashMap may be thread safe but putting non atomic Integers in there still leaves you vulnerable to threading problems
- badgar 14y ago
  > ConcurrentHashMap may be thread safe but putting non atomic Integers in there still leaves you vulnerable to threading problems Yes, thread-safety is hard in these languages. You have to think about code when you write it.