On Dec 19, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Toby Wintermute <t...@wintrmute.net> wrote: >> 2011/12/16 Peter Vereshagin <pe...@vereshagin.org>: >>> 2011/12/16 12:38:16 +1100 Toby Wintermute <t...@wintrmute.net> => To >>> London.pm Perl M[ou]ngers : >>> TW> > (i)Threaded perl5 ( 'use threads' ) doesn't seem to be recommended for >>> TW> > production environments. >>> TW> >>> TW> I know it certainly wasn't recommended back in the days of 5.6 or 5.8, >>> TW> but I thought things had improved since then.. >>> >>> They did. Perl6 was released and it seems to have threads those can be >>> recommended. >>> Perl5 have fork() that 'just works' and seems to be enough. >> >> So, you're saying that threads under perl5 is forever going to be >> considered broken and not worth touching then? :( >> >> Why do all the main distros ship a threading-enabled Perl? I note that >> Padre won't build without threads enabled either. > > Because threads are cool and all the cool languages have them? > > My take is that because perl's ithreads are so expensive (in time > and memory both to start them up and to share data), you are almost > always better off designing your code to work with forks instead. > I just don't see the compelling use case for threads, unless you are > stuck in the threading mindset.
And if you are, you might want to look at the forks.pm module. It provides the threads.pm API using fork(). Liz
