[cpp-threads] C++ committee meeting in Mont Tremblant

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Peter A. Buhr wrote:
> No! It makes no sense to me at all. You have to come up with better reasons
> than difficult syntax or the "will" of the standards committee to foster
> change. The memory-model group is doing its job by pointing out hard reasons
> why a memory model is necessary and getting on with a solution. Kudos to all of
> them. So why are we not doing the same thing for rest of the concurrency
> problems that have to be addressed? As Hans has pointed out, if you do
> race-free concurrent programming you don't even need a memory model (or only a
> weak model). Well, it turns out that 99% of all concurrent programs that
> regular programmers need to write can be written using a race-free model and
> these programs can achieve high-levels of performance and be written quickly
> and with few errors. Is this not a useful goal? Given this observation, should
> we not be examining high-level race-free mechanisms for C++ to achieve this
> goal? I think we have to identify our audience, and target a solution for this
> audience. The memory-model people have a very small audience doing very
> precise, complex bits of concurrency at the ragged edge of performance.  We now
> need to address the other large bulk of the concurrency audience and help them
> do their job. And this group is significantly more than just the scientific
> computation crowd, which is only a small percentage of all concurrent
> programmers.

Upon rereading the above, I realize I might have misunderstood the 
paragraph. So, sorry! Instead of disagreeing, let me ask for more 
detail. What high-level race-free mechanisms do you have in mind?

Andrei

-- 
cpp-threads mailing list
cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
http://decadentplace.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk