Ditch Your (mut)ex, You Deserve Better
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
chrispenner.caTechstory
calmmixed
Debate
20/100
ConcurrencyProgramming LanguagesSoftware Transactional Memory
Key topics
Concurrency
Programming Languages
Software Transactional Memory
The article discusses the limitations of mutexes and introduces Software Transactional Memory (STM) as an alternative, sparking a discussion on concurrency control in different programming languages.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
30m
Peak period
1
0-1h
Avg / period
1
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 12, 2025 at 4:17 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 12, 2025 at 4:47 PM EST
30m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
1 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 13, 2025 at 1:17 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45906849Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 1:54:04 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Mutexes have lots of issues, as mentioned. Some are mitigated in other languages, like Rust, which gates access to the data in the mutex via the lock and disallows mutation for shared (multithreaded) data without a mutex.
STM sounds interesting, but it doesn't really seem different to me from a mutex. I'm not very familiar with Haskell, but AFAICT you still need to decide on a call tree root that does the commit, functions can't be blindly composed. I guess if there's an error nothing happens, but I doubt that's a magic bullet when you're dealing with external systems like processes, databases, etc (i.e. if the STM fails to commit, the database could then go out of sync with memory).