* Manlio Perillo <[email protected]> [2008-12-13 11:54:05 +0100]:
> [email protected] ha scritto: > >> For another, the paper arbitrarily redefines the word "threads" to mean >> "this cool thing that doesn't exist yet", rather than existing things >> that people call "threads". It specifically mentions the deficiencies >> of current thread implementations and does not always point to specific >> improvements, let alone the challenge of popularizing and deploying >> those improvements. The comparison to erlang's concurrency model is >> interesting, since they specifically avoid the term "threads" - erlang >> calls them "processes" to avoid exactly the confusion the authors are >> attempting to create. >> > > The reason Erlang calls them "processes" is because in Erlang each > "thread of execution" share nothings with other "threads of execution". > > Haskell, as an example, has "micro threads" support, and it calls them > threads (or "Haskell threads"), since the state is shared (but the > function that creates a new "thread" is called forkIO, with an > additional function forkOS, that creates a thread bound to an OS thread). There isn't any sharing of *mutable* state, though, unless you explicitly share it, so this is a lot more similar to Erlang processes than to Python threads. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list [email protected] http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
