Le 24/07/2016 22:37, Jaromil a écrit :
On Sun, 24 Jul 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> writes:
Le 22/07/2016 18:21, Brian Nash a écrit :
For example, when I discovered multithreading, all my programs used it
in some way, even when it was unnecessary.
I sometimes use multithreading, but never mutexes. Mutex can be
harmless if there's only one. Otherwise better use select()/poll() or
you'll waste time or even dead-lock. It's amazing how the old select()
paradigm is so much better than the modern mutex. I see mutex as an
invention to relieve the programmer from thinking.
One of the advantages of having more than one thread of execution
running in the same address space is that these can communicate with
each other without going through the kernel. And 'a mutex' is just a
basic primitive for implementing this.
nowadays the closures paradigm (basically fifo pipes of pointers to
stateless functions) is used much more than all that mutex and
semaphore old stuff. i.e. golang adopted closures since the beginning
with great success.
ciao
Don't know what a closure is, although I heard of it long ago on
this list. According to Wikipedia, it is "a record containing a function
and its environment". I'm not sure it is different of a method
associated to an object - there are subtelties here. However I imagine
the inter-thread synchronization stuff here is the pipes. I implemented
a pipe object in Ada a few years ago to synchronize two tasks; if it was
a closure it would be by chance :-)
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
