At 3:18 PM -0700 12/29/00, Scott Raney wrote:
>No but not because we're even considering adding thread support to the
>language. It's because an event-driven application (e.g., using "read
>to socket with message" and "write to socket with message") is more
>efficient and usually easier to write and debug than one that uses
>"wait with message" or any other multi-threading system. In fact,
>multithreading is such a pain in the ass that we've gone to
>considerable effort to *remove* all of the existing multithreading
>code from the engines for the next release and will rely totally on
>event-driven architectures instead.
At 3:18 PM -0700 12/29/00, Scott Raney wrote:
>No: this feature is only for programming convenience and would offer
>nothing in terms of performance (in fact, it will most likely slow
>things down, just as multithreading in other languages does).
Just out of curiosity, Scott, would the one exception to this
statement (that threading hurts performance) be in the case of
multi-processor systems? Under those circumstances, doesn't threading
simplify the passing out of work to multiple CPUs?
Regards,
Geoff
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
