The following statement of mine is very misleading:
> It seems to me that this conversation would be more efficient if we
> could agree to the following:
>
> Version (B) is simpler to understand than Version (A). Version (A)
> is preferable because it's faster. More generally, "synchronized
> access to all shared variables" is a simpler principle by which to
> program than trying to selectively apply idioms for unsynchronized
> access. The attraction of a tighter memory specification is _not_
> to prevent the "unwashed masses" from introducing race errors but
> rather to allow programs to run faster by removing unneeded
> synchronizations.
>
> In what way do you disagree with this statement?
This is not _my_ position -- this is a position I'm arguing against. But
this is what I think is the position of Josh and others defending the
stronger JMM semantics. I was hoping to clarify that that the primary
motivation for the stronger semantics is not avoidance of programming
errors but rather performance improvements.
-------------------------------
This is the JavaMemoryModel mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
To send a message to the list, email JavaMemoryModel@cs.umd.edu
To send a request to the list, email majordomo@cs.umd.edu and put
your request in the body of the message (use the request "help" for help).
For more information, visit http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 13 2005 - 07:00:13 EDT