On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Curtis L. Olson wrote: > Lawrence Manning writes: > > Well, with threads you can spread the load across CPUs. So it is not > > just a convience for the programmer. Afterall, the original poster > > bought up the matter of big boxes with lots of slow processors. > > Right, but we should also bear in mind the a) "typical" flightgear > platform, b) the fact that the bulk of the flightgear application work > is in rendering the 3d display, c) the practical problems that things > like opengl and our property system is not thread safe, d) the > complexity and subtle bugs that threading *very* often introduces when > added to large complex applications.
Completely agree. I probably should have kept my mouth (fingers) shut. Only certain applications lend themselves strongly towards threading, and FlightGear obviosly isn't one of them. My sole expereince with threads is on Win32 (C/MFC stuff) and I never want to do it again, so understand completly where you are coming from. > I don't want to add a bunch of threads if the only reason is that > threads looked cool and fun when we studied them in a computer science > class, and there is one person with a machine that could benefit. Definetly agree on that! Had the "threads are cool, processes suck", from my "OS Theory" prof as well. I pointed out that its a nice theory, but dosn't work quite like that in the real world ;-) Lawrence _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
