Le 27/07/2016 17:54, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
- resent after someone made Spamhaus remove the @talktalk.net e-mail
blacklisting entry -
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 26/07/2016 12:59, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Sleeping on a c
Rainer Weikusat writes:
This can be avoided by ensuring that each thread which needs to hold A
and B acquired A first and B second.
Every time I've run into that in the past ten years, the reason for the
deadlock was that subsystem X locked B and subsystem Y Z, and then someone
made a functio
- resent after someone made Spamhaus remove the @talktalk.net e-mail
blacklisting entry -
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 26/07/2016 12:59, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>> Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this wa
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 08:15:27AM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 26/07/2016 12:59, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> >Didier Kryn writes:
> >>Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> >>>Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this way. But that's
> >>>supposed to be an exceptional case.
Le 26/07/2016 12:59, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this way. But that's
supposed to be an exceptional case.
This is why, while advertizing itself as a cool "don't care"
feature,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:07:31PM +0100, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> I think you meant to write coroutines, not closures, as that's what go
> adopted based on Hoare's 'Communicating Sequential Processes'. That's
> also pretty 'old stuff'. It's also unfortunately an instace of something
> which should
Jaromil writes:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>> > Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
>> >> For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
>> >> in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
>> >
>> > I sometimes use multithreadi
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this way. But that's
>> supposed to be an exceptional case.
>
> This is why, while advertizing itself as a cool "don't care"
> feature, a mutex is problematic:
I don't know
Le 25/07/2016 18:06, Steve Litt a écrit :
Complexity has costs that must be paid. Before including any
complexity, I ask myself "can I pay the freight?" Can I afford the
decreased repairability? Can I afford the decreased readability? Am I
ready to document how it works, so a well meaning future
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:21:00 -0400
Brian Nash wrote:
> This describes a problem I used to have perfectly.
>
> For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
> in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
>
> This might be the root of all the problems we are facing with
> c
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 25/07/2016 00:55, Steve Litt a écrit :
> >On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:30:47 +0200
> >Didier Kryn wrote:
> >
> >>Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
> >>>nowadays the closures paradigm (basically fifo pipes of pointers to
> >>>stateless functions) is used
Le 25/07/2016 00:55, Steve Litt a écrit :
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:30:47 +0200
Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
nowadays the closures paradigm (basically fifo pipes of pointers to
stateless functions) is used much more than all that mutex and
semaphore old stuff. i.e
Le 25/07/2016 01:29, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Sleeping on a contended mutex is implemented in this way. But that's
supposed to be an exceptional case.
This is why, while advertizing itself as a cool "don't care"
feature, a mutex is problematic: the programmer should make sure
contention
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 11:30:47PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
> >On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> >
> >>Didier Kryn writes:
> >>>Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
> For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 24/07/2016 22:31, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>> Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
>>> I sometimes use multithreading,
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 23:30:47 +0200
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
> > nowadays the closures paradigm (basically fifo pipes of pointers to
> > stateless functions) is used much more than all that mutex and
> > semaphore old stuff. i.e. golang adopted closures since t
Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading,
Le 24/07/2016 22:31, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be
harmle
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Didier Kryn writes:
> > Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
> >> For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
> >> in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
> >
> > I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. M
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
>> For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
>> in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
>
> I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be
> harmless if there's only one. Otherwise bet
On 07/23/2016 06:01 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 23/07/2016 10:49, Simon Walter a écrit :
On 07/23/2016 05:42 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I some
Le 23/07/2016 10:49, Simon Walter a écrit :
On 07/23/2016 05:42 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes.
On 07/23/2016 05:42 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be harmless
if there's only one. O
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be harmless
if there's only one. Otherwise better use select()/poll() or you
This describes a problem I used to have perfectly.
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
This might be the root of all the problems we are facing with computers
today: If we see a cool new feature, we have to find some w
Am Wed, 20 Jul 2016 22:40:11 +
schrieb Steve Litt :
Hi Steve!
> I just found out about Wirth's Law:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> * Look at all the money in my bank account. I'd better start spending.
> [ . . . ]
I remember this theory/law already mentioned in the eighties in a
genius Apple II GS discus
Hi all,
I just found out about Wirth's Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
Hey, I live in the 21st century, so I don't try to optimize out a
kilobyte at a time. But I'm also not blind, so I know that Openbox plus
dmenu is a whole lot quicker and snappier, even on modern computers,
t
27 matches
Mail list logo
