On Fri, October 26, 2007 6:46 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: >> I write this w/o even really knowing what concurrency means, but Tcl has >> threads. > > Threads ain't concurrency. > > Threads with shared memory are one model of concurrency. Evidence > suggests that they are a *poor* model of concurrency. > >> However, the Tcl gurus say, "if you think you need threads in >> Tcl, you almost certainly are wrong." IOW, that there is an easier way >> to >> do whatever it is in Tcl. > > When I have to debug race conditions and declare global variables to use > the GUI, the language doesn't handle concurrency correctly. > > No, there isn't always an easier/different way. This is part of the > reason why I don't bother to examine Tcl more. I saw this tendency in > the Tcl bunch back at 8.0, "If we don't have it, you don't need it." > > That's fine. But if I need it, and you don't have it, I ain't gonna use > your bloody language. > > -a >
I think you're being a little harsh. It has threads. What they're saying is, if you _think_ you need threads, you probably don't. This may not be true of you but may still be true in the main. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
