Browse thread
Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Martin Berger <M.Berger@d...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Where's my non-classical shared memory concurrency technology? |
David Teller wrote: > IIRC, there are already type systems which may prevent deadlocks in > pi-calculus. This is true but (1) these typing systems are quite complicated and it will take heroic educational efforts to push such new typing systems into programming mainstream; (2) these typing systems (or at least most of them, the Kobayashi/Igarashi scheme is extremely general) are relatively restrictive and many useful concurrent programming idioms turn out to be not typable. Regarding (1), I think using such typing systems for concurrency is completely unavoidable for a variety of reasons, and they will be adopted in the medium term (in about 10 years), but they are not ready for the mainstream yet. As to (2), extending the typing systems is an active research area, and these problems will be solved eventually. Moreover, recent success in extending Hoare Logics to concurrency mean that we don't have to rely on typing systems alone, instead with can take typing systems of medium complexity to prevent the great majority of concurrency bugs and have logics for rare hard cases. (Well, that's the hope anyway!) Martin