multi-core software

[Jeff M.]

On Jun 7, 3:19 pm, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jon Harrop wrote:
> > Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> >> Jon Harrop wrote:
> >>> I see no problem with mutable shared state.
> >> In which case, Jon, you're in a small minority.
>
> > No. Most programmers still care about performance and performance means
> > mutable state.
>
> Quite apart from performance and mutable state, I believe we were
> talking about mutable _shared_ state. And this is something that gets a
> _lot_ of people into trouble.
>

Mutable shared state gets _bad_ (err.. perhaps "inexperienced" would
be a better adjective) programmers - who don't know what they are
doing - in trouble. There are many problem domains that either benefit
greatly from mutable shared states or can't [easily] be done without
them. Unified memory management being an obvious example... there are
many more. Unshared state has its place. Immutable state has its
place. Shared immutable state has its place. Shared mutable place has
its place.

Jeff M.