From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20040303094018.00aa5fe8@pop.monitorbm.co.nz>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Andrew Simmons <andrew.simmons@monitorbm.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo
In-Reply-To: <200403020748.i227mLxn071341@adat.davidashen.net>
References: <4cac3ee48455c3c5f48149771bba4f03@plan9.escet.urjc.es>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Date: Wed,  3 Mar 2004 09:50:51 +1300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0ddddb90-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025


>
>Class Thread is not a part of the language. 'synchronized'
>is. What's wrong with Java synchronization? Can you please
>bring an example in Java and limbo where Java's synchronization
>is bad while limbo's approach is right?

Brinch Hansen's paper "Java's Insecure Parallelism" is worth a read. There 
have been at least a couple of attempts at welding a CSP style framework on 
top of Java threads  - eg:

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ofa/jcsp/

but the syntax looks fairly brutal.