zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. Skepti+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-08-22 16:08:25
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.
replies(3): >>mattma+v4 >>vips7L+XY >>gf000+f22
2. mattma+v4[view] [source] 2025-08-22 16:33:33
>>Skepti+(OP)
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.

3. vips7L+XY[view] [source] 2025-08-22 21:30:58
>>Skepti+(OP)
What are Javas 2 different paradigms?
4. gf000+f22[view] [source] 2025-08-23 07:45:07
>>Skepti+(OP)
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.

[go to top]