-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bruderer wrote:
> Logical? Only for programmers not knowing the gigantic overhead of threads.
> Fast? Its probrably for most problems not even faster to develop, especially
> since multithreading always leads to the nastiest bug ever. And for the
> application its obvious that it gets slower with each thread.
There's so much prejudice in this that I won't comment.
> How do you think are IRC Servers written? NO, they dont use a sheer amount of
> threads. Even though in that case the benefit would be obvious. You know why
> they dont use many threads? because they couldnt serve thousands or tenths of
> thousands users simultanously. It would break any reasonable machine.
IRC servers have different requirements. They need to be able to handle
several thousands of simultaneous connections. That's why they don't use
threads. If I wrote an IRC server in java that was designed to handle
several thousands of connections I wouldn't use threads for I/O, either.
Your point is moot.
> Maybe its too easy to write new Thread in java, maybe posix threads had its
> value in its complexity. People using them knew how difficult they are.
Threads are not complex - unless you don't know how to handle them.
Getting the synchronization right is not a very hard thing once you know
how to do it.
> Yes, I really got upset when I read the answer of toad. Maybe I was a bit
> harsh.
> But I think this careless programming leads to more problems than saving some
> hundred lines of code.
Using threads has _nothing_ to do with careless programming.
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD4DBQFFAI8dsh8Hgp5TwkMRAkkRAJYyw+TCSynvXOc2Kyw6YUPeY7VAAJ9i3225
Phtef4ZpIwC+lhL2EI5gng==
=Vrj3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
