On Fri, March 30, 2007 2:43 pm, Stewart Stremler wrote: > There are many alternatives, but each one comes with its own set of > tradeoffs (just like threads), so pointing at one or the other and > saying "That one is BEST" is really just someone who wants to force > their view on to everyone else. > > I think we need some more languages with built-in threading support, > 'cuz the future is looking like multi-core shared-memory systems. We're > going to be dealing with concurrent programming issues no matter what. > We should be exploring that problem space, not avoiding it. >
I have assumed that there _are_ problems that must be solved with threads; else why would they have been added to the Tcl core. I think it's fair for an experienced programmer to say, if you find yourself reaching for threads (or any other advanced feature), you would do well to return to your analyses unless you have one of the bona fide problems that feature was designed to cope with. Perhaps I'm less quick to think of this as arrogance (which I'm quick to condemn) because I am so accustomed to the measured and courteous tone of the Tcl lists. There is very little posturing or zealotry there. The closest they come to smugness is the occasional "one of the nice things about Tcl ..." statements. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
