develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2014

Re: RFC: add discouragement warning to perl threads documentation

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Christian Walde
Date:
March 4, 2014 16:05
Subject:
Re: RFC: add discouragement warning to perl threads documentation
Message ID:
op.xb7gaczjydyjqt@digitizedsqueak
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:35:01 +0100, Steffen Mueller <smueller@cpan.org>  
wrote:

> On 03/03/2014 02:54 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 14:45:56 +0100, Steffen Mueller <smueller@cpan.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/03/2014 12:35 AM, Christian Walde wrote:
>>>> So now i don't know if you're thinking in a timeframe that removes the
>>>> necessity for my patch or not.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I don't think your patch is a necessity to begin
>>> with.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Sorry, I should have stressed "necessity" in that. Perl ithreads are not  
> deprecated. They're a kludge, no doubt. They're commonly misunderstood.  
> But that doesn't make it a _necessity_ to have your patch or the non-FUD  
> equivalent. (Do note that I really mean FUD, not saying it's bs.)

Thanks for explaining your position. I think i understand where you're  
coming from. Let me try and maybe at least soften your position.

We're not trying to claim they are deprecated or make the impression. As  
the patch says clearly, we are trying to communicate that they are  
discouraged (not deprecated), because few people understand them and  
because they're a kludge.

I'd also ask you to consider that maybe the problem is not as much of a  
priority to you, because you spend less time on IRC and are thus less  
often exposed to people who think that ad-hoc threads are the right  
solution to their web crawler module.

Lastly, FUD is the spreading of questionable information to the  
disadvantage of both the receiver and a third party, to the sole benefit  
of the spreading party. In this case however we are explicitly trying to  
make sure that the information being spread is accurate. (Please correct  
us if you see information in the patch that is questionable.) Further, the  
intent is to benefit everyone and reduce the disadvantages other people  
are currently putting on themselves due to a lack of documentation.

So, yes, the patch is most decidedly not necessary. However including it  
will be to the benefit of people. The reason i asked the question you  
quoted is that Leonerd and xdg might be writing documentation that will  
include the message of the patch in a better form, thus bringing the same  
benefit and making this one superfluous.

-- 
With regards,
Christian Walde

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About