By: David W (david.delete@this.wragg.org), December 11, 2014 5:18 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Patrick Chase (patrickjchase.delete@this.gmail.com) on December 9, 2014 4:52 pm wrote:
> > In languages with automatic GC (e.g. anything based on the JVM), the question of object
> > reference locking goes away: If a thread holds an object reference, it knows it can
> > safely dereference it at any time. So in my experience, although concurrent programming
> > with a GC is still hard, it is much less hard than concurrent programming without a GC.
>
> You do realize that all you've done here is to move the problem, right?
Of course.
> All of the
> arguments that Linus made still apply, they've simply been moved to the VM/GC.
Yes. In some contexts that represents a significant improvement to the situation.
> > In languages with automatic GC (e.g. anything based on the JVM), the question of object
> > reference locking goes away: If a thread holds an object reference, it knows it can
> > safely dereference it at any time. So in my experience, although concurrent programming
> > with a GC is still hard, it is much less hard than concurrent programming without a GC.
>
> You do realize that all you've done here is to move the problem, right?
Of course.
> All of the
> arguments that Linus made still apply, they've simply been moved to the VM/GC.
Yes. In some contexts that represents a significant improvement to the situation.
