On May 30, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Seth Willits wrote:
> On May 30, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Joe Strout wrote:
>
>>> A lot of messages on this list claimed about the fact that RB does
>>> not use more than one processor (or one core) at a time. it is
>>> incredible and unacceptable !!
>>
>> Get over it. Preemptive multitasking is, in general, very bad mojo.
>> If you access ANY functions that are not thread-safe .... then
>> your program will have obscure bugs that will crop up in
>> odd circumstances after your software is released.
>
> And yet all those developers (including myself) are able to work
> within the limitations fine.
>
> My interpretation of this answer totally boiled down to "you're too
> naiive to understand how bad threads are." Arguing that for 99% of the
> REALbasic's customers the cooperative model is just fine, or that it's
> simply too big of a time and cost tradeoff to make the core
> foundations of the framework thread-safe, is one thing, but to say
> "it's too hard and you're going to fail" is rather silly.
>
> Just because they're not trivial to use seems like a poor argument to
> not have them.
I've been doing multi-processor programming for 20 years, and even
today I still sometimes make mistakes.
Multi-processing is a lot more difficult to design and prove, since
the only times that you have any guarantees are launch, end, and
explicit synchronization primitives.
--
Glenn L. Austin <><
Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver
<glenn at austin-home dot com>
<http://www.austin-home.com/glenn/>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|