The technique can and should be fairly explored, not dismissed out of hand due to faulty or sub-optimal implementations.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've been quietly following your progress in anticipation of trying out the results.

With respect to the thread safety. I am not convinced is that there is either a need for, or a benefit to, sharing objects between threads. I believe that most everything that can be done by doing so, can also be done, and is (may be) better done through a "messaging" interface.

My opinion is based upon the results of various prototypes I created for a distributed object architecture several years ago. Cooperating objects could variously exist as

We tried various mechanisms, including cross-threaded objects (sic), and on the basis of my experiences then, cross-threaded objects simply ended up getting cross-threaded. Programmed absolutely correctly, they worked reasonably well, but the requirements for the application programmers and object constructors to understand and deploy locking and synchronisation at various levels, meant that they became too easily subject to deadlocks.

We opted for a message passing paradigm which allowed both application and object writers to essentially ignore locking and synchronisation issues and the SendMessage()/ProcessMessage() infrastructure took care of all that in a dependable manner while still allowing full advantage to be taken of asynchronism.

In practice, the perceived costs of message-ifying communications, were more than compensated for (in performance terms) by the avoidance of "belt&braces", unnecessary locking and sync-ing. In terms of reliability and programmer productivity, there was no contest.

So, my opinion is based upon experience, albeit possibly not entirely relevant experience, but I have followed your progress with interest, and open mind, and a desire to try out the results.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

In reply to Re^6: Overriding bless for inside-out object safety by BrowserUk
in thread Overriding bless for inside-out object safety by xdg

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.