Re: [boost] Re: Threads

From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-24 14:05:08

Greg Colvin wrote:
> Jens Maurer:
> > I think that striving for compile-time support for error detection
> > is a good idea in general (that's why we're using a statically-typed
> > language), but not very applicable to the problems with threading,
> > which are run-time dynamic in their most intrinsic nature.
> 
> If your problems with threads are "run-time dynamic" then
> you are in hopeless trouble.  Code is always dynamic.  To
> write correct code you have to be able to reason about
> program state *statically*.

The main point is whether you can explain the problem well enough
to the compiler so that *it* can reason statically (on a meta level)
about your program.  The answer is no.  The theory says that a
computer cannot even decide (in general) whether your program has
endless loops or not.  I am saying that threading is of this quality.

The programmer can always reason statically, be creative and
write a formal proof his program.  But that's the level where all
the bugs happen: The programmer thinking wrongly about what his
program does.

Jens Maurer