Hacker Read

neonsunset | karma 1899 | avg karma 1.11 · 2024-05-12 13:39:17

Lack of multi-threading simplifies a lot, but is at odds with performance.

wongarsu | karma 24397 | avg karma 4.14 · 2024-05-12 14:31:29

You can still have multithreading, you just have to forbid shared data. You can move data between threads at thread creation and termination, and for everything else the language can provide channels/queues to move data between threads. Erlang operates under that model and is great at multithreading

hu3 | karma 5570 | avg karma 2.62 · 2024-05-12 14:39:44

"just have to forbid shared data"

That's a too severe constraint to be qualified as "just".

reply

sph | karma 25884 | avg karma 6.7 · 2024-05-12 15:29:57

That is indeed the goal I am working towards, but a bit more relaxed than Erlang: mutability is possible only within a single actor/thread, but anything sent in a message to another actor is deep copied. So no memory is ever shared, but the language allows single-threaded mutation for performance.

neonsunset | karma 1899 | avg karma 1.11 · 2024-05-12 17:06:32

It might be great, just not performant.

CSP often locks you into a single consumer style of pattern, which is highly problematic and scales poorly for anything that isn't statically partitionable. Once you go to MPMC, you start sharing data which immediately forces you to have proper ARC with the high synchronization cost it entails (even without using atomics, RC forces cacheline eviction between cores meaning it acts as a brutal bottleneck on many-core systems per Amadhal's law).

reply