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 <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 better use select()/poll() or
> >>>you'll waste time or even dead-lock. It's amazing how the old select()
> >>>paradigm is so much better than the modern mutex. I see mutex as an
> >>>invention to relieve the programmer from thinking.
> >>One of the advantages of having more than one thread of execution
> >>running in the same address space is that these can communicate with
> >>each other without going through the kernel. And 'a mutex' is just a
> >>basic primitive for implementing this.
> >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 the beginning
> >with great success.
> >
> >ciao
>
> Don't know what a closure is, although I heard of it long ago on this
> list. According to Wikipedia, it is "a record containing a function and its
> environment". I'm not sure it is different of a method associated to an
> object - there are subtelties here.
That is indeed the way it is implemented in the OO language Sather.
-- hendrik
::
Re: [DNG] Wirth's law
