On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:46:06 AM UTC-5, Marko Topolnik wrote: > > I wouldn't say that it should not have been added since its presence isn't > harming anything. You could say, though, that rarely anyone would realize > something was missing if Clojure didn't have the STM. > > > Although I am convinced that STM can solve things that locks cannot (See the claim "*lock-based programs do not compose" *on Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory), I feel this feature is so much over-sold. Whenever you read someone raves about Clojure on the web, they mention "STM" as a key feature and how wonderful it is. My own experience is similar to yours, atoms work most of the time and I also need to use locks. I benefit more from the fact that Clojure clearly marks what is mutable and what is not than any of those "advanced" features.
-- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
