[Greg Ewing]
> If I have to use real threads to get my uthreads to work
> properly, there doesn't seem to be much point in using
> uthreads to begin with.
> ...
> Microthreads should *free* one from all that nonsense. They
> should be simple, straightforward, easy to use, and bulletproof.
> Instead it seems they're going to be just as tricky to use
> properly, only in different ways.
Stackless uthreads don't exist to free you from nonsense, they exist because
they're much lighter than OS-level threads. You can have many more of them
and context switching is much quicker. Part of the price is that they're not
as flexible as OS-level threads: because they get no support at all from the
OS, they have no way to deal with the way C (or any other language) uses the
HW stack (from where most of the odd-sounding restrictions derive).
One thing that impressed me at the Python Conference last week was how many
of the talks I attended presented work that relied on, or was in the process
of moving to, Stackless. This stuff has *very* enthused users! Unsure how
many rely on uthreads vs how many on coroutines (Stackless wasn't the focus
of any these talks), but they're the same deal wrt restrictions.
BTW, I don't know of a coroutine facility in any x-platform language that
plays nicely (in the sense of not imposing mounds of implementation-derived
restrictions) across foreign-language boundaries. If you do, let's get a
reference so we can rip off their secrets.
uthreads-are-much-easier-to-provide-in-an-os-than-in-a-language-ly
y'rs - tim
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