On Wednesday, 15 February, 2017 03:16, Cecil Westerhof <cldwester...@gmail.com> said:
> 2017-02-15 8:58 GMT+01:00 Clemens Ladisch <clem...@ladisch.de>: > > Jens Alfke wrote: > > Threading is the most extreme method of achieving parallelism, and > > therefore should be used only as the last resort. (I'd compare it to > > assembly code in this regard.) > At the moment I am not using it much and I am certainly not an expert, but > as I understood it one of the reasons to use threading is that it costs a > lot less resources. Which was very important a few years ago when Dynamic RAM cost more than a $1000 per megabyte, were having memory that could be measured in units bigger than Kilobytes meant you had a whopping expensive huge computer that probably cost more than your car, house, and yacht all added together. Yet it was computationally as advanced as my wristwatch. There is nothing wrong with multithreading. Using "processes" is just multithreading -- with training wheels, belt, suspenders, diapers, and knee pads -- to prevent the foolish from, well, being foolish. If you design your "multithreaded" program as if each thread were a separate process but without all the safety gear to prevent you from hurting yourself (and defeating Natural Selection in the process), you will have much less issue. Note that for several modern OSes, the OS is nothing more than a discontiguous saved segment (DCSS) which is mapped into *every* process space and that process isolation is more of a myth than a reality. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
