There's no risk of threading being removed. It's only experimental, as per Yichao, in the sense that it's currently not ready for production use.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Florian Oswald > <florian.osw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ok, thanks for that. do you think this is going to change already in > v0.6 or > > will that have to wait until a future release? > > There will be improvements but it's very likely still going to be > experimental in 0.6. > > > > > > > On 14 November 2016 at 23:59, Yichao Yu <yyc1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Florian Oswald > >> <florian.osw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I'm not sure how many people are using Base.Threads out there, I came > >> > across > >> > it by accident and think it works great. It's under the heading > >> > "experimental" in the manual, so I just wanted to encourage the > >> > developers > >> > that this is a great feature, please don't drop it. I just wrote > >> > @threads in > >> > front of a loop in my code and time was cut by pretty much exactly > >> > JULIA_NUM_THREADS. > >> > >> It's experimental in that apart from some really simple cases, code > >> that uses thread can easily crash. > >> It is not recommended to use threading at this stage. > >> > >> > > >> > Along those lines, has anyone tried to run a hybrid job, i.e. > connecting > >> > several machines via `addprocs` and running several threads on each of > >> > those > >> > machines? Is something like that even possible and/or do you recommend > >> > something like that? There is not too much in the manual, so I would > >> > just > >> > like to get some more info. > >> > >> Doing so is certainly possible but is not recommended since threading > >> itself isn't. > >> > >> > > >> > thanks. > >> > > >> > > > > > >
