Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 13 Sie, 14:47, "Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ada provides language syntax for concurrency. It feels cleaner to me than
> any of the C++ thread libraries I have used. Is that because those C++
> libraries just don't have the interface "right?" Maybe. But it might also
> be because it's just not possible to express concurrency in a nice clean
> way when using only library calls.

Right and this is the first valid argument for preferring built-in
language support over library-based API. I agree with that.
You have to, however, take into account the history differences
between these two languages. Adding the concurrency features at the
very beginning when the language is designed is more comfortable than
doing it later on. There is a general dislike for adding new reserved
words in subsequent language revisions for compatibility reasons. You
cannot break anything by adding new API in the standard namespace
(which is reserved anyway), but you can break a lot by introducing new
reserved words like "thread", "task" or "job".

You can argue that built-in support for a given feature is better for
the reasons of syntax clarity, but it could not be applied to C++
within its constraints.
I think this is a tradeoff, but the final solution is optimal for the
target community.

Note: Some time ago I have written an article on how a language-based
support for basic threading features could possibly look like in C++:

http://www.inspirel.com/articles/Possible_Syntax_For_Cpp_Threads.html

I still think that what was standardized will serve the community
better.

--
Maciej Sobczak * www.msobczak.com * www.inspirel.com

Database Access Library for Ada: www.inspirel.com/soci-ada