Subj : Re: Challenge: Multithreading & Synchronization
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Butenhof
Date : Fri May 20 2005 02:43 pm

Uenal Mutlu wrote:
> "Maciej Sobczak" wrote
>>Of course, in *some* cases, the activities will be associated with a
>>single object and it is then when it might make sense to tightly
>>associate a mutex with a single value object. A queue used between
>>threads is a good example, but apart from such specific examples, you
>>should synchronize *activities* and you shoule keep *invariants* of your
>>program.
> 
> In the end you will see that my approach of integrated mutices is the only
> clean, flexible, fast, reusable, ...  method for making multithreaded programs ultra-fast.
> Just do some more research and then let's talk again about your experience.
> Don't blindly believe what some old-schooler's tell you, think yourself  :-)

Oh yes, textbook publicity line. "I'm smart and experienced and if you 
don't agree with me you're not." The problem is that you've spent an 
enormous amount of energy here recently convincing everyone that you're 
NOT experienced, and opening many questions as to whether you're "smart" 
in any relevant sense of the word.

Don't be foolish and trivial, please. You have tried to prove your 
points. While you may continue to pretend that your arguments haven't 
evaporated under scrutiny, I'm afraid it's pretty obvious to anyone who 
reads the recent discussions.

I certainly hope, in fact, that everyone will follow the only reasonable 
advice you apparently have to offer: think for yourself and don't 
blindly believe what this guy says.

-- 
Dave Butenhof, David.Butenhof@hp.com
HP Utility Pricing software, POSIX thread consultant
Manageability Solutions Lab (MSL), Hewlett-Packard Company
110 Spit Brook Road, ZK2/3-Q18, Nashua, NH 03062

.