Leon Timmermans wrote: > For the love of $DEITY, let's please not repeat ithreads!
$AMEN! Backwards compatibility is not the major design criterion for Perl 6, so there's no need to recapitulate our own phylogeny here. The problem is: while most people can agree on what have proved to be unsatisfactory threading models, not many people can seem to agree on what would constititute a satisfactory threading model (or, possibly, models). What we really need is some anecdotal evidence from folks who are actually using threading in real-world situations (in *any* languages). What has worked in practice? What has worked well? What was painful? What was error-prone? And for which kinds of tasks? And we also need to stand back a little further and ask: is "threading" the right approach at all? Do threads work in *any* language? Are there better metaphors? Perhaps we need to think more Perlishly and reframe the entire question. Not: "What threading model do we need?", but: "What kinds of non-sequential programming tasks do we want to make easy...and how would we like to be able to specify those tasks?" As someone who doesn't (need to) use threading to solve the kinds of problems I work on, I'm well aware that I'm not the right person to help in this design work. We need those poor souls who already suffer under threads to share their tales of constant misery (and their occasional moments of triumph) so we can identify successful patterns of use and steal^Wborg^Wborrow the very best available solutions. Damian