[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.