From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: John McCabe <john@nospam.assen.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++0x and Threads - a poor relation to Ada's tasking model?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:13:49 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <kkha8596l2r1tqs9ltrlvhof9lv2tqifoa@4ax.com>
References: <7q2385104kihs87d79p8kfphuoki6r01vq@4ax.com>
 <cb0dbf43-bfdf-43b3-b9e6-3a5916462da8@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
  <81a101a3-b46e-4268-973c-356c6119ee2b@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
  <2785ff1e-661b-41ce-95a8-cef2862e2907@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
  <6239906b-e952-4bf9-8a11-b7faf942bdde@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
  <Xns9C665974FB608pcc482719gmailcom@198.186.192.137>
 <270bf4df-4d0b-4621-9005-80ef8ab51634@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: RXEkuaSUwmKe0XIGFYSK7A.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.9
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jB3umEpXw/bUaGF1ClW8bD/Qb4s=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7769
Date: 2009-08-14T12:13:49+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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?