[mrkeen]

> What is a safe concurrency model?

STM.

The terms 'atomic', 'thread-safe', and 'concurrent' collections are thrown around too loosely for application programmers IMO, for exactly your example above.

In other scenarios, 'atomics' refer to the ability to do one thing atomically. With STM, you can do two or more things atomically.

Likewise with 'thread-safe'. Thread-safe seems to indicate that the object won't break internally in the presence of multiple threads, which is too low of a bar to clear if your goal is to write an actually thread-safe application out of so-called 'thread-safe' parts.

STM has actual concurrent data structures, where you can write straight-line code like 'if this collection has at least 5 elements, then pop one'.

I don't think the Feb 31 example is that fair though, because if you want to construct a representation of Feb 31, who's going to stop you? And if you don't want to, plain old static types is the solution.

[gf000]

I couldn't give a better reply than this author:

https://joeduffyblog.com/2010/01/03/a-brief-retrospective-on...

Also, a phenomenal writing (as are his other posts) on the whole concurrency landscape, see:

> A wondrous property of concurrent programming is the sheer number and diversity of programming models developed over the years. Actors, message-passing, data parallel, auto-vectorization, …; the titles roll off the tongue, and yet none dominates and pervades. In fact, concurrent programming is a multi-dimensional space with a vast number of worthy points along its many axes.

[mrkeen]

I've read a few postmortems about STM. I have to take them with a grain of salt because I usually read those reports right after doing a bunch of STM programming, and right before doing a bunch more STM programming. Reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

Here it is in 2006 featuring the same Tim from your article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tve57vilywc

I didn't start using it in anger till 2013-2014 maybe? But I don't recall any major differences between what the video shows and how it works in 2025.

Anyway, postmortems usually boil down to two issues:

1) That's not how programmers usually do it

2) We couldn't pull it off

The most obvious explanation for 1 is 2. I, too, would be disappointed by the low-adoption rates of my new technology if I hadn't built it or released it to users.

But the article has some gems:

  Transactions unfortunately do not address one other issue, which turns out to be the most fundamental of all: sharing. Indeed, TM is insufficient – indeed, even dangerous – on its own because it makes it very easy to share data and access it from multiple threads;

I cannot read this charitably. This is the only reason for, not a damning reason against. It's like doing research & development on condoms, and then realising it's a hopeless failure because they might be used for dangerous activities like sex.

  I already mentioned a great virtue of transactions is their ability to nest. But I neglected to say how this works. And in fact when we began, we only recognized one form of nesting. You’re in one atomic block and then enter into another one. What happens if that inner transaction commits or rolls back, before the fate of the outer transaction is known

You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an atomic is that it will commit; it should be obvious a priori that something that commits cannot be in the codepath that can be rolled back.

  Then that same intern’s casual statement pointing out an Earth-shattering flaw that would threaten the kind of TM we (and most of the industry at the time) were building. ...
  An update in-place system will allow that transaction to freely change the state of x. Of course, it will roll back here, because isItOwned changed to true. But by then it is too late: the other thread using x outside of a transaction will see constantly changing state – torn reads even – and who knows what will happen from there. A known flaw in any weakly atomic, update in-place TM.

  If this example appears contrived, it’s not. It shows up in many circumstances.

I agree that it's not contrived. It's in the problem-space of application writers. It's not a problem caused by introducing STM. We want an STM system to allow safe access to isItOwned & x, because it's a PITA to try to do this with locks.

[gf000]

`atomic` is their choice of syntax for an STM transaction in their experimental C# runtime, it's not an atomic statement. Please take the time to actually read the article, because you have obviously just skimmed over it. This was not written by some nobody, he does know what he talks about.

[mrkeen]

Argue the point, not the person.

Look ma, no skimming: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37647230

[gf000]

There is not much to argue, when your point is based on a misunderstanding.

> You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an atomic is that it will commit; it should be obvious a priori that something that commits cannot be in the codepath that can be rolled back.

This makes absolutely no sense with my above correction.