Yes, this is what threads were designed for. As an abstraction to have multiple "threads of control" on a *single* processor (in a single process). The whole multi-core business came decades later. (Classic multi-processors have something called threads too, but they, too, came later than the original single-core-single-CPU thread concept, and often threads on those systems have properties that don't match how threads work on modern multi-core CPUs.)
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > Lennart Regebro wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:13, Sturla Molden <stu...@molden.no> wrote: >> >>> >>> I genuinely think the use of threads should be discouraged. It leads to >>> code that are full of bugs and difficult to maintain - race conditions, >>> deadlocks, and livelocks are common pitfalls. >>> >> >> The use of threads for load balancing should be discouraged, yes. That >> is not what they are designed for. Threads are designed to allow >> blocking processes to go on in the background without blocking the >> main process. This, they are very useful for. Removing thread support >> would therefore be a very big mistake. It's needed, it has it's uses, >> just not the one *you* want. >> >> > > That's an interesting assertion about what threads were designed for. Do you > have anything to back it up? > > Michael > > -- > http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ > http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
