On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:10:09 +0000 Deon Brewis <de...@outlook.com> wrote:
> If you look at the original underlying NT I/O architecture that > Cutler implemented - it is a thing of beauty that's based in async > patterns, and not threads. ... > If instead NT initially only exposed the Nt API's and not the Win32 > layers, we would have had languages that simplified async a long time > ago - and multi-threaded would be the domain of a few applications > that actually need compute, and not just non-blocking IO. That's very interesting, Deon, thanks. I'm happy to cross out Cutler's name from my list of those who Ruined Computing During My Lifetime. I'm not as optimistic as you about what would have happened languagewise. Language support for OS features is pretty rare. Threads happened, and no language corralled them. Windows has completion ports, which are very useful for asynchronous control, but afaik no Microsoft language supports them. It's why I like Go: it's the first language in 30 years to incorporate concurrency in its design, and finally support a theoretically sound model. --jkl _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
