[cesarb]

> unable or unwilling to do the work to avoid it

The problem is that it's rare to write code which uses no third-party libraries, and these third-party libraries (most written before Java virtual threads ever existed) have a good chance of using "synchronized" instead of other kinds of locks; and "synchronized" can be more robust than other kinds of locks (no risk of forgetting to release the lock, and on older JVMs, no risk of an out-of-memory while within the lock implementation breaking things), so people can prefer to use it whenever possible.

To me, this is a deal breaker; it makes it too risky to use virtual threads in most cases. It's better to wait for a newer Java LTS which can unmount virtual threads on "synchronized" blocks before starting to use it.

[josefx]

> have a good chance of using "synchronized" instead of other kinds of locks; and "synchronized" can be more robust than other kinds of locks (no risk of forgetting to release the lock, and on older JVMs, no risk of an out-of-memory while within the lock implementation breaking things),

I haven't professionally written Java in years, however from what I remember synchronized was considered evil from day one. You can't forget to release it, but you better got out of your way to allocate an internal object just for locking because you have no control who else might synchronize on your object and at that point you are only a bit of syntactic sugar away from a try { lock.lock();}finally{lock.unlock();} .

[hashmash]

The fact that the monitor is public rarely causes issues, and in those cases where it's used on internal objects, it's not really public anyhow.

There's an additional benefit to using the built in monitors, and that has to do with heap allocation. The data structure for managing it is allocated lazily, only when contention is actually encountered. This means that "synchronized" can be used as a relatively low cost defensive coding practice in case an object which isn't intended to be used by multiple threads actually is.

[bunderbunder]

Is there a similarly low-level synchronization mechanism that doesn't work this way? .NET's does the same thing.

I guess I might have preferred if both Java and .NET had chosen to use a dedicated mutex object instead of hanging the whole thing off of just any old instance of Object. But that would have its own downsides, and the designers might have good reason to decide that they were worse. Not being able to just reuse an existing object, for example, would increase heap allocations and the number of pointers to juggle, which might seriously limit the performance of multithreaded code that uses a very fine-grained locking scheme.

[merb]

In .net async won where lock and mutex does not work (lock is like synchronized, not exactly the same, tough). That’s why most libraries use SemaphoreSlim which would work with green threads. But that’s more because of the ecosystem. I’ve barley stumble upon lock’s and mutex is mostly used in the main method since it acquires a real os mutex, not really a cheap thing but for GUIs it’s clever to check if the app is running. Most libs that use system.threading.task use semaphoreslim tough.

[bunderbunder]

Yeah, definitely. But for a fair comparison I think you have to look at how .NET did things before async/await hit the scene. And, for that, the aspect of the design in question is quite similar between the two.

[josefx]

Early .Net is hardly an independent data point from early Java. Not only was .Net directly influenced by Java, it also had to support a direct migration from the Microsoft JVM specific Visual J++ to J#.

The handful of languages I know either do not have a top level object class that supports a randomized set of features ( C++ ) or prioritize a completely different way of concurrent execution ( Python, JavaScript ).