▲ | SkepticalWhale 4 days ago | |
I mostly agree with you except the simple syntax with one way of doing things. If my memory serves me, Java supports at least 2 different paradigms for concurrency, for example, maybe more. I don’t know about C#. Correct me if wrong. | ||
▲ | mattmanser 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
But that's only because they're older and were around before modern concurrent programming was invented. In C#, for example, there are multiple ways, but you should generally be using the modern approach of async/Task, which is trivial to learn and used exclusively in examples for years. | ||
▲ | gf000 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
There is no one paradigm for concurrency, no method is strictly better than the other. Channels are not the only primitive used in go either, so it's a bit moot point. What's important is how good primitives you have access to. Java has platform and virtual threads now (the latter simplifying a lot of cases where reactive stuff was prevalent before) with proper concurrent data structures. | ||
▲ | vips7L 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
What are Javas 2 different paradigms? |