Stewart Stremler wrote: > This sort of reasoning alwasy makes me want to grind my teeth. :)
The reasoning isn't entirely faulty. A more complete rationalization would be: "I have assumed that the language designers thought there were problems that should be solved with threads; otheerwise why would they have been added to the Tcl core." > NO problem _must_ be solved with threads. They're merely a tool to > produce a simpler design (within bounds) -- and it's all running as > part of one huge sequential program anyway, it's on a Von Neumann > machine. Increasingly, modern computer systems more closely resemble non-Von Neumann machines that sort of simulate Von Neumann machines (aided and abetted by the OS and platform API's). > (Coroutines are *almost* as simple, except they still require language > support or ugly hacks (strike 1), and they result in having to grok > both sides of the problem at the same time (strike 2), and they're > difficult to scale up to multiple producers or consumers (strike 3).) There are other abstractions as well. I tend to like the declarative ones, but yeah, they all have issues. --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
