> On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 09:17:23AM +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> > Careless thread programming is bad. But one doesn't have to be
> > careless.
> No, but threads seem to encourage bad programming concepts. Its not
> necessarily a waekness of threads, but a weakness in how human beings
> view concurrency perhaps.
> > Hard for you maybe? Threads can be useful sometimes. Of course
> > there are times when other approaches are better. Doesn't mean
> > threads are never useful though.
> Threads can be extremely useful - and threads can poorly used.
> I know I'm stating the obvious, but some OSs use threads to a
> ridiculous extent and it shows....
Yea sure. BeOs uses different threads for everything from every window
on the screen to just about every function in libc, and it is very fast
and scales extremely well across multiple CPUs. For every example there
is a counter-example.
If your point is that threads are easily used poorly, you could as
easily argue that the C programming language is easy to use badly, point
out some of the huge numbers of bad C programs and programmers, and
determine that nobody should program in C. This sort of argument is silly.
A good tool that is hard to use is still a good tool for those who know how
to use it. Masters write good code, and beginners write crap. Compare the
work of masters of related paradigms to compare on an equal basis.
Lets end this thread now before it becomes even more silly.
-- Erik B. Andersen Web: http://www.inconnect.com/~andersen/ email: email@example.com --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html