[concurrency-interest] Lock-free mania
jseigh_cp00 at xemaps.com
Wed Apr 18 06:33:05 EDT 2007
Brian Goetz wrote:
>I think that's right. Just as eight years ago the same crew built
>elaborate thread-based mechanisms to solve problems that were entirely
>compute-bound and deployed on single-processor systems -- which would
>have been more effectively solved with a sequential approach.
>But its not productive to try and "outlaw" foo-free algorithms, any more
>than it was productive to outlaw threads -- the best we can do is
>educate people when NOT to use them. Of course, teaching people that
>they're not as smart as they think is an uphill battle. Time tends to
>be a better teacher of these things than those who actually know better.
Most of the lock-free algorithms are patented or being patented, so you
could sort of "outlaw"
them with licensing restrictions.
More information about the Concurrency-interest