On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 10:58:54PM +0000, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> y* Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 09:05:43PM +0000, Michael Stevens wrote:
> > > Ok, it's trolling a bit, but their main use seems to be where
> > > you don't want to bother to do proper nonblocking IO...
> > <quick web search>
> > They're apparently faster. And make it easier to share data.
> aside from the whole LWP aspect, i think the main appeal is they are
> a defined art - unlike the matre'd/minicab controller element of
> forked process management
Hmm, it just always feels like someone sat down once and said "ok,
we have two choices:
1) we could improve proccesses, and IPC, and make them useful and standard
and easy for the task we want to do.
2) we could ignore the considerable work we spent implementing processes,
and build a new form of thing, and them build all our standards on top
of that
". And they picked the second option.
> we really want standardisation of technology interfaces in the industry,
> and threads go a little towards that - oh and a law that alows be to
> go around and shooting people who work in IT and i deep unworthy[1].
I do agree with this part.
