On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Jon Harrop &lt;<a href="mailto:jon@ffconsultancy.com">jon@ffconsultancy.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Avoiding threads does not improve the safety of the language, it simply<br>
degrades the capabilities of the language.<br></blockquote><div><br>Avoiding threads is like avoiding malloc() in a C program and doing only static and stack allocation: it is cumbersome and impractical, but avoids a whole class of allocation bugs.<br>
<br>Similarly, avoiding threads removes concurrency bugs - while reducing the concurrency capabilities.&nbsp; So it&#39;s not really improvement of safety, but rather avoidance of unsafety - a purely semantic issue.<br><br>I think we are still lacking programming language technology to integrate safe and easy-to-use shared memory concurrency in ML-like languages.&nbsp; Does anyone know of anything in this area aside from transactional memory?<br>
-- <br>Berke<br><br></div></div>