On the same line as these other comments it seems like the paper picks on many problems that immutability and functional programming solve for us. Being a recent viewer of many of the clojure screencasts it now makes more sense how much emphasis is placed on these two items instead of the actual STM system when discussing and presenting clojure's concurrency support.
Chris G On Nov 4, 5:26 am, Stuart Halloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting stuff. If you follow through to the linked paper, it seems > to me that many of the issues are much less relevant for Clojure. In > particular, the sections about weak atomicity, privatization, and > memory reclamation (p.42) seem not to be a problem. > > On the other hand, interactions with non-TX code and livelock (p.41) > strike me as potential problems. > > Bryan Cantrill concludes that "STM is a dog." That may be true, but I > am *sure* that locking is a bitch. :-) > > Stuart > > > > >http://blogs.sun.com/bmc/entry/concurrency_s_shysters > > > I'm new to clojure... and like what I see. > > > Just passing this blog post on as a discussion point... > > > Thanks! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
