# Re: Very interesting paper about future programming models

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-very-interesting-paper-about-future-programming-models/85292>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [February 12, 2007, 12:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-very-interesting-paper-about-future-programming-models/85292 "2007-02-12T12:27:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/michaeln)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-very-interesting-paper-about-future-programming-models/85292/1 "2007-02-12T12:27:47Z")

</div>

Benjohn B. wrote:

> Having not even read the piece…
> 
> I was following up on Software Transactional Memory from an earlier  
> Ruby T. posting, and that looks extremely promising.

Have you read this thread on Software Transactional Memory?

> **[Misguided: The Road Not To Be Travelled](http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2007/02/misguided-road-not-to-be-travelled.html)**
>
> Update: This is turning into a lot of work. Why did I start this? Oh, I remember. Because this is a really bad feature that could screw up...

It’s about the downsides of STM.

Regards,

Michael

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/michaeln)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-very-interesting-paper-about-future-programming-models/85292/2 "2007-02-14T15:29:36Z")

</div>

> > 
> 
> It’s about the downsides of STM.

Fantastic! 🙂 I’d like something to temper my enthusiasm.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@michaeln](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/michaeln)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2007, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-very-interesting-paper-about-future-programming-models/85292/3 "2007-02-14T16:56:52Z")

</div>

> Have you read this thread on Software Transactional Memory?
> 
> [Making it stick.: Misguided: The Road Not To Be Travelled](http://patricklogan.blogspot.com/2007/02/misguided-road-not-to-be-travelled.html)

Well, I’ve had a browse, and it mostly seems to be a rant on the style  
of, ‘I don’t like it, it sounds dangerous, ooooo, it’s horrible, look at  
it! These other people don’t like it either!’, without (that I’ve found  
yet) a clear statement of why.

The main objection seems to be that software will end up being a mess of  
shared state that many process are franstically writing too, but that  
just seems like really bad design to me. Asynchronus message queues, it  
suggests, are a better option.

I get the feel that there is a “holy war” between a functional approach,  
and an imperitive approach here, somewhere. I’ll need to read it more  
closely, because that sounds interesting. I don’t yet see why STM  
shouldn’t be highly functional though (I personally like functional a  
lot).

Cheers,  
Benjohn