On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:48 AM, P.J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 02:49 PM 3/7/2010 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> P.J. Eby wrote: >> > (Personally, I think it would be better to just drop the ambitious title >> > and scope, and go for the "nice task queue" scope. I imagine, too, that >> > in that case Jean-Paul wouldn't need to worry about it being raised as a >> > future objection to Deferreds or some such getting into the stdlib.) >> >> This may be a terminology thing - to me futures *are* just a nice way to >> handle farming tasks out to worker threads or processes. You seem to see >> them as something more comprehensive than that. > > Actual futures are, yes. Specifically, futures are a mechanism for > asynchronous computation, whereas the PEP seems to be all about > synchronously managing parallel tasks. That's a huge difference. > > Technically, the things in the PEP (and by extension, Java's futures) match > the letter of the definition of a future, but not (IMO) the spirit. There's > no clean way to compose them, and at base they're more about parallelism > than asynchrony. Do you have an example of a language or library that uses the term "future" to refer to what you're talking about? I'm curious to see what it looks like.
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