On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, rektide <rekt...@voodoowarez.com> wrote: >> Your original request for threads-in-node has been met with >> explanations from me, Ben, and Paddybyers about what would need to be >> done to make that happen, and what the challenges are. > > > You are projecting defensively: I never requested this feature. I have no > expectations for it.
Step 1 in effective communication: accept that you are ignorant of the mind-states of others. Do your best to refrain from providing explanations that rest on assumptions about what someone else is thinking or feeling, choosing instead to refer to specific demonstrable facts, or your own feelings and thoughts. Saying "You are projecting defensively" is a judgement, not an observation. If you are correct, and I'm being defensive, then calling out my defensiveness will tend to make me more defensive; if you are wrong, then I'm likely to get angry about your presumptuousness. So, just as a matter of tactics, it's pretty much always the wrong move. I did misunderstand your "Threads are a feature" as implying that you think we should implement a threaded API in Node. I apologize for this. You're right, you never explicitly requested any specific features. In my defense, in the OP, you did say: 1. Threads are a feature, one that will unlock new exciting things we can do and make existing features better (namely child_process.fork()). 2. "We don't have that feature" is not a feature, is not a pro. You described threads as "a killer feature a mature runtime ought have in it's toolkit". Which, at least on a cursory reading, does sort of sound like you're suggesting it's a good idea, and you want it. For what it's worth, I do agree with you about dogmatism. I feel qualified to say that there's no "threads are bad, mmkay" opinions from the core team here. It's much more nuanced than that. > I'd love an explanation fulfilling my February request: what factors lead to > it being deemed Isolates was adding too much internal complexity? > ... > I don't demand my 'intellectual curiosity' be satisfied, I'm fine with "I'm > not going to tell you." But I here re-affirm that this hunger is not sated, > and that this issue is not closed. If there are Node.js people that feel > they can provide technical contributions about what happened, I probably am > not going to directly make Node.js better with that knowledge, but I think > we'd all be better for the wisdom you knowing people can share. Please see the replies in this thread from Paddy Byers, Ben Noordhuis, and Bradley Meck. They've shared the exact information you're asking for. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
