On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:01:41 +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol - rv...@isolution.nl
<+nntp+browseruk+014f2ed3f9.rvtol#isolution...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
The support of threading should be completely optional. The threading
support should not be active by default.
I'd like to understand why you say that?
Two reasons I can think of:
1: Performance. The perception that adding support for threading will
impact the performance of non-threaded applications.
If you don't use threads, the presence of the ability to use them if you
need to will not affect you at all.
The presence of Unicode support will have a far more measurable affect
upon performance. And it will be unavoidable.
2: Complexity. The perception that the presence of threading support will
complicate non-threaded apps.
Again, the presence of Unicode support adds far more complexity to the mix
that that for threading.
But with either, if you choose not to use it, you shouldn't even be aware
of its presence.
Do you believe that Unicode support should be dropped?
See also http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-posix1.html
and fathom why "Threads are fun" reads to me like how a drug dealer
lures you to at least try it once.
To me, that reads far more like some of the advocacy I've seen for Giving
Blood.
"If your squeamish, get a friend to distract you, or listen to some good
music whilst they put the needle in".
Rather fork-join!
For platforms where fork is native, it doesn't go away just because
threads support is present.
(Do Perl_6 hyper-operators need pthreads?)
Buk.
