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

[John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Maciej Sobczak
<see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

c.f. Adding classwide programming to Ada 95.

>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.

I'll have a look at that. As a matter of interest, a long time ago
there were parallel C compilers for the Transputer. How did the
thread/processors communicate/interact in those languages?