Bruce Eckel wrote:
> I always have a problem with this. After many years of studying
> concurrency on-and-off, I continue to believe that threading is very
> difficult (indeed, the more I study it, the more difficult I
> understand it to be). And I admit this. The comments I sometimes get
> back are to the effect that "threading really isn't that hard." Thus,
> I am just too dense to get it.
The few times I have encountered anyone saying anything resembling "threading
is easy", it was because the full sentence went something like "threading is
easy if you use message passing and copy-on-send or release-reference-on-send
to communicate between threads, and limit the shared data structures to those
required to support the messaging infrastructure". And most of the time there
was an implied "compared to using semaphores and locks directly, " at the start.
Which is obiously a far cry from simply saying "threading is easy". If I
encountered anyone who thought it was easy *in general*, then I would fear any
threaded code they wrote, because they clearly weren't thinking about the
problem hard enough ;)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
