[Python-Dev] New PEP: 319

[Michael Chermside]

Michel Pelletier writes:
   [...]
> No explicit lock is necessary.  Any object may be synchronized upon
> (except, perhaps, None).
   [...]


In my opinion, this is one of the glaring *flaws* of the java threading
and synchronization model. Locks are entities of their own, to be used
when synchronization is needed. There does NOT need to be a lock
associated with each and every object in the system (even if, as an
implementation detail, that lock isn't created unless it is used). If
a programmer needs to synchronize, they should THINK about what exactly
needs to be synchronized with what, and create an appropriately named
lock. Explicit is better than implicit. Making it "easy" for programmers
who use threads by making unnecessary for them to think about details
like which lock is used for what synchronization, is almost certainly
NOT doing them a favor... instead, it's just inviting subtle, hard-to-
find bugs.

-- Michael Chermside