On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 1:50:32 AM UTC+2, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > > Bruno, I think your comments belong in the other discussion. This is > what I was referring to in that lame shared-state data corruption pun > I made earlier, about sharing data across threads :) > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Jouhier > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > What I don't get is why the word "thread" has become so horrible and is > > causing such reactions. To me share-nothing threads are just an > optimization > > over processes. What matters is the "share nothing" semantics. > > > > I can understand that you consider threads to be a low priority on > node's > > roadmap. As I said in my earlier post, the sweet spot of node is I/O > > intensive apps and these apps don't need this feature. What I don't > > understand is the irrational reactions that the word "thread" generates. > > > > Bruno > Yes they do. I'm following this through the Google web UI. The two discussions are interleaved in a single list and I did not pay attention to the titles. Maybe Google does not like threads either :-)
-- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
