Can someone address Simon Marlow's point here?
https://plus.google.com/109566665911385859313/posts/FAmNTExSLtz
> unbuffered channels are "synchronous" in the sense that both reader
> and writer must be ready at the same time. It's easy to deadlock if
> you're not careful. Buffered channels allow asynchronous writes, but
> only up to the buffer size, so that doesn't actually make things
> easier. Fully asynchronous channels, like you get in Erlang and
> Haskell don't have this problem, but they are unbounded so you have
> to be careful about filling them up (Erlang uses a clever scheduling
> trick to mitigate that problem, though).
I am concerned that we are only hearing one side of the argument here,
and Haskell folks seem to have come down fairly strongly in favor of
unbounded channels.
To reiterate: At this point I believe we should have both as first-class
citizens, like `java.util.concurrent`. Choosing one or the other seems
to be neglecting too many use cases.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
