> Ever wonder why software transactional memory never really succeeded despite the hype?
You can implement software transactional memory with locks just fine. Are you talking about hardware transactional memory perhaps?
(In some sense, database transactions are pretty similar to software transactional memory.
And that points to a different possible reason why software transactional memory (STM) hasn't taken off:
STM works really well in a language like SQL or Haskell with carefully restricted side-effects. But bolting STM onto an impure language is asking for trouble.)
PS Your main point about locks vs atomic primitive still stands regardless.
You can implement software transactional memory with locks just fine. Are you talking about hardware transactional memory perhaps?
(In some sense, database transactions are pretty similar to software transactional memory.
And that points to a different possible reason why software transactional memory (STM) hasn't taken off:
STM works really well in a language like SQL or Haskell with carefully restricted side-effects. But bolting STM onto an impure language is asking for trouble.)
PS Your main point about locks vs atomic primitive still stands regardless.