On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

>
> Avoiding threads does not improve the safety of the language, it simply
> degrades the capabilities of the language.
>

Avoiding threads is like avoiding malloc() in a C program and doing only
static and stack allocation: it is cumbersome and impractical, but avoids a
whole class of allocation bugs.

Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs - while reducing the
concurrency capabilities.  So it's not really improvement of safety, but
rather avoidance of unsafety - a purely semantic issue.

I think we are still lacking programming language technology to integrate
safe and easy-to-use shared memory concurrency in ML-like languages.  Does
anyone know of anything in this area aside from transactional memory?
-- 
Berke