Mike Meyer wrote: > Bryan Olson writes: >>System support for threads has advanced far beyond what Mr. Meyer >>dealt with in programming the Amiga. > > I don't think it has - but see below. > >>In industry, the two major camps are Posix threads, and Microsoft's >>Win32 threads (on NT or better). Some commercial Unix vendors have >>mature support for Posix threads; on Linux, the NPTL is young but >>clearly the way to move forward. > > I haven't looked at Win32 threading. Maybe it's better than Posix > threads. Sure, Posix threads is better than what I dealt with 10 years > ago, but there's no way I'd call it "advanced beyond" that model. They > aren't even as good as the Python Threading/Queue model. Ever looked under the hood to see what happens when you wait with a timeout on a Python queue/semaphore? With Python threads/queues how do I wait for two queues (or locks or semaphores) at one call? (I know some methods to accomplish the same effect, but they suck.) >>Java and Ada will wrap the native thread package, which >>C(++) offers it directly. > > Obviously, any good solution will wrap the native threads [...] I recommend looking at how software that implements sophisticated services actually words. Many things one might think to be obvious turn out not to be true. -- --Bryan
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4