Re^2: Shared state concurrency is a no, no

No, controlled conditions in this case means one or two shared state variables wrapped in a mutex and explicit concurrency. None of this willy-nilly everthing-shared-state-plus-autothreading monkey business. And even then you'll probably still have deadlock problems.

Comment on Re^2: Shared state concurrency is a no, no

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Shared state concurrency is a no, no by Anonymous Monk on Apr 27, 2005 at 11:59 UTC
Bug-free concurrency certainly is possible, it just requires more brain power than the average programmer possesses. Some people can do it with a handful of shared state variables wrapped in seperate mutexes and still prevent deadlocks just by thinking through their code very carefully.	[reply]
Re^4: Shared state concurrency is a no, no by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 27, 2005 at 17:15 UTC
Some people can do it with a handful of shared state variables wrapped in seperate mutexes and still prevent deadlocks just by thinking through their code very carefully. Show me please. 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?	[reply]