Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


#Actualhplus0603

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:15 AM

Trying to do concurrency in C# is an exercise in frustration, especially on mono.


I don't quite understand this statement.

C#, the language, actually has a few useful features for concurrency (lock, async/await.)

The .NET system libraries have some *excellent* features for concurrency, especially with the later "Async" versions of I/O instead of the "Begin" versions. (The Begin versions are still better than Java, but do generate garbage per operation.)
I've found the mono implementation of the system libraries to be shoddy, though, just like the mono implementation of pretty much any other library feature. Perhaps this is what you're referring to?

The WinForms UI framework, by contrast, is not so great for concurrent and threaded operations. Luckily, most servers don't need to worry about this UI problem much.

#1hplus0603

Posted 18 September 2013 - 11:14 AM

Trying to do concurrency in C# is an exercise in frustration, especially on mono.


I don't quite understand this statement.

C#, the language, actually has a few useful features for concurrency (lock, async/await.)

The .NET system libraries have some *excellent* features for concurrency, especially with the later "Async" versions of I/O instead of the "Begin" versions. (The Begin versions are still better than Java, but do generate garbage per operation.)

The WinForms UI framework, by contrast, is not so great for concurrent and threaded operations. Luckily, most servers don't need to worry about this UI problem much.

PARTNERS