From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9fe2df93f80bf5bea9bf494f1436edf0@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 2009 10:20:29 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60909040652y5504130dqc7bc737452193ad5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 643aefac-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in
> entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in shooting
> it down [...]

remember, if a guy says to the king, hey you're fly's undone,
we send that guy to the stockades for a week.  meanwhile
the king's fly remains undone.

since the raison d'etre of blocks is ease of programming,
i would think it would follow that it should be uniformly
easier across the board.  if there are big exceptions to this
(like extra locking), i would think the feature would earn
a fail.

i'm just noting that if blocks require locking as you mention,
then this is inferior to calling a function through a pointer.

unless you don't accept more locking is worse, it's hard to
argue this point.

you can accuse me of hating, that won't change how blocks
work.

> Deep down inside, I want people to stop trying to code stuff like this in C
> and try the massively scaled parallelism/concurrency stuff in other
> languages better suited to the problem space.

why would you use c then?

- erik