Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0x1ceb00da | Hacker News Reader

> I always said if your code locks or use atomics, it's wrong.

Why atomics?

People mess up the order all the time. When you mess up locks you get a deadlock, when you mess up an atomic you have items in the queue drop or processed twice, or some other weird behavior (waking up the wrong thread) you didn't expect. You just get hard to understand race conditions which are always a pain to debug

Just say no to atomics (unless they're hidden in a well written library)

People are messing up any number of things all the time. The more important question is, do you need to risk messing up in a particular situation? I.e. do you need multithreading? In many cases, for example HPC or GUI programming, the answer is yes, you need multithreading to avoid blocking and to get much higher performance.

With a little bit of experience and a bit of care, multithreading isn't _that_ hard. You just need to design for it. You can reduce the number of critical pieces.

I completely disagree with you and I do write performance code (but not specifically HPC) and my current day job is highly async code with a GUI

Are you saying GUIs in general don't need multithreading or just that you think you haven't needed it so far? Or that you use some high-level async framework that hides just the synchronisation bits (at the cost of async type complexity)?

I use a high-level async framework. It works extremely well so far. I do need to add code occasionally, but that's because it's an in-house lib that isn't a year old yet

Reply on news.ycombinator.com