-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Perl6-Internals <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Nick Ing-Simmons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: RFC 178 (v2) Lightweight Threads
>Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>>
>>> Multithreaded programming is hard and for a given program the only
>>> person truly knowing how to keep the data consistent and threads not
>>> strangling each other is the programmer. Perl shouldn't try to be too
>>> helpful and get in the way. Just give user the bare minimum, the
>>> basic synchronization primitives, and plenty of advice.
>>
>>Amen. I've been watching the various thread discussions with increasing
>>despair.
>
>I am glad it isn't just me !
>
>And thanks for re-stating the interpreter-per-thread model.
>
>>Most of the proposals have been so uninformed as to be
>>laughable.
>
>--
>Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
Ok, I'm not super familiar with threads so bear with me, and smack me upside
the head when need be. But if we want threads written in Perl6 to be able
to take advantage of mulitple processors, won't we inherently have to make
perl6 multithreaded itself (and thus multiple instances of the interpreter)?
Glenn King
