Jeanna FOx wrote: > It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the > mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it > off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would rather > loose the illusion of safety to get better performance. > Well, mandatory locking is something we should definetly NOT have in Perl6. Most of perl's code today is not threaded, and I believe much of it will continue to be this way. The pseudo-fork thread behaviour that is being proposed also makes this ok. Even if you have threads, you have to say explicitly if you want anythinig to be shared. And if you explicitly share something, then you should care the locks by yourself. At least, that's my opinion. - Branden
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Grove
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ J. David Blackstone
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ John Porter
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ J. David Blackstone
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Jeanna FOx
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Branden
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Cantrell
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Piers Cawley
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Mitchell
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Jeanna FOx
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Branden
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Thomas Butler
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Dan Sugalski
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Dan Sugalski
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Mitchell
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Mitchell
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Branden
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ David Mitchell
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Branden
- Change the subject (was Re: JWZ on s/Java/Per... Bryan C. Warnock
- Re: JWZ on s/Java/Perl/ Branden