Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 1999
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:33:12 EST, Dan Sugalski wrote: >>All that said, every time I see people patching USE_THREADS code I >>wonder if it's all going to be for nothing. I don't see much hope >>for salvaging the existing model of USE_THREADS where prolific >>locking is needed. > >Can we get a ruling on whether threads as they stand are in or out? And a >statement of direction if they're in? I can't make that judgement yet at this point, I want to wait to see how the other way fares first in comparison. (My *guess* at this point would be that existing USE_THREADS will be out in the cold soon.) >I really don't mind writing code that ultimately gets tossed out because it >sucks or there's a better way to do things--it's a learning experience if >nothing else, and the next time around the code's usually better. What I >don't want to bother doing is writing code that is going to be tossed >because I'm going the wrong way. IMHO, you're going the wrong way, but I've said that before. >I mean, at this point I've got code for Thread::Stop roughed out, >preliminary mutex tracking set, and a scheme to make unsynchronized scalar >access safe with about an order of magnitude less overhead than my last >try. Getting them all going is a good chunk of work, and I don't mind doing >it. I think it needs to be done, and that's not the point. I have other >things to occupy my time, though, and I'd just as soon not tilt at these >windmills without cause. Well, I hope you're not saying nobody ever warned you. (Watch out for those neon "experimental" signs all over, buddy. :-) >If the current threading model is dead, can we just shoot the poor thing >and be done with it? Otherwise let's commit to it and figure out what needs >to be done. This limbo state isn't doing anyone any good. It's ain't dead until it's dead. A deep coma has set in. Whether it is worth reviving is dependent on the quality of life afterward. Sarathy gsar@ActiveState.comThread Previous | Thread Next