>fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
Sounds like fun.
Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a play on the classic pop hit song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
All girls or most girls?
I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
All girls or most girls? I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
> I definitely know some girls who'd love this, and see this as having fun.
That's hard to believe. Then you should know at least an order of magnitude more "boys" who would love this: At an estimated 95% male ratio on HN, 20 times as many. If the "some girls" you "definitely" know are 3, then you would be expected to know about 3x20=60 males who are interested in "fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting", which sounds about equally hard to believe.
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#44>fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting Sounds like fun.
It's very rare (if ever) I'd want M on both ends... and no work stealing. Usually it's one M and an S.
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or add section to explain most common agent comments. Shouldn't your agent explain its own comments? why would the author of a fast queue care what your agent says?
Because it would not even pass initial code review for most developers. Most people use short review prompt, with yes/no answers. Imagine the code compilers (or some analysis tool) gives several concurrency and memory warnings. It has easy workaround (just annotate strange code, with links to explanations that this is workaround for low level bugs). I am too tired of shitty "safe" Rust code, with 'unsafe' section aro…
> Most people use short review prompt, with yes/no answers
I don't. I review code by hand, like I have for 20 years. I think you might have some sample bias.
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I jumped at the headline. I'd be happy with wait-free MPSC. I haven't checked in for a while. Have there been any breakthroughs in low-complexity wait-free queues in the past 10 years?
The MPSC/MPMC structure in Aeron is wait-free with respect to producers - one producer cannot block another There are simple node based algorithms that achieves a similar guarantee: https://web.archive.org/web/20240928080729/https://www.1024c... There is also a MPMC algorithm on this site very similar to the article https://web.archive.org/web/20220524214823/https://www.1024c...
Nice to see Vyukov's MPMC queue mentioned. It's pretty neat. I have used a C implementation[1] of this in a small personal project.
[1]: https://github.com/dorjoy03/dsync/blob/master/src/mpmc_queue...
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a play on the classic pop hit song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
Hi, author of the blog post here, that was in fact not the joke. I'm a girl, I care. I just like playing off of that song's title.
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#48Surprised nobody here nor on the reddit thread caught this one: https://github.com/nahla-nee/wfqueue/blob/main/src/lib.rs#L3... unsafe impl Sync for WFQueue {} unsafe impl Send for WFQueue {} These impls are unsound, because neither constrains `T` to be `Sync`/`Send`. As-written this would let you declare a `WFQueue , N>` and pass non-atomic-refcount pointers between threads. The fix is straightforward: unsafe impl S…
WFQueue isn't handing out &T, so Send is sufficient:
unsafe impl Sync for WFQueue {}
unsafe impl Send for WFQueue {}Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a play on the classic pop hit song "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
If you wanna be pedantic, the set of people who care about fast mpmc queues with bounded waiting is very very tiny across even the whole population of HN, let alone the broader populace. I would posit that So of any statement of " just wanna have fast mpmc queues" should be obviously taken as a parody.
At which point... why rail on this?
Re: Girls just wanna have fast MPMC queues with bounded waiting
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also a joke because girls definitely don't care about "Fast MPMC Queues with Bounded Waiting" at all. We can estimate the HN audience to be ≈95% male.
Hi, author of the blog post here, that was in fact not the joke. I'm a girl, I care. I just like playing off of that song's title.
No offense, but from the mentioned base rates (HN male to female ratio) I would be surprised if you were biologically female.