Re: [tlug] STM (was: Re: work times & accommodation @tokyo)

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

お早う!

...literally... what are you doing on a sunday morning at 5?

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 05:25:53 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

>  > For any given solution, you only have to pick the right
>  > problem to make it look good.
> 
> And with enough solutions, you can solve lots of problems.  STM,
> especially as implemented in Haskell, is a very elegant solution to a
> useful class of concurrency problems.

Yes, and this put Haskell on my list of languages to have a
deeper look at. 

>  > I've read it, though not completely understood. But IMHO
>  > STM is not the silver bullet to solve all concurency problems.
> 
> Well, that's what I said.  Nor has Curt made any claims to the
> contrary that I can detect.

Yes, you didn't but the STM community does. 

>  > Actually, i think STM has more problems under the hood than
>  > does conventional locking have. But it does serve as a different
>  > abstraction to see problems in a different light.
> 
> You're referring to stuff like Patrick Logan's blog post?
> http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2007/02/misguided-road-not-to-be-travelled.html

Nope, didn't know this one. I just skimmed over it for now
(have to read it later when i'm a little bit more awake)
and i agree mostly with him.
What i was refering to are all the papers and reports by
the STM community that show what problems STM has, always
ending with "this has to be researched further" but there
is no follow up at all..
So the problems are known, but nobody adresses them.


				Attila Kinali

-- 
The true CS students do not need to know how to program.
They learn how to abstract the process of programming to
the point of making programmers obsolete.
		-- Jabber in #holo