On Feb 18, 2008 1:26 PM, Geoff Steckel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is my last posting on this, take heart. > > The "threads" advocates have never specified any > advantages of a program written using that model > (multiple execution points in a single image) > over a multiple process model, assuming that > parallelism is useful. > > If the purported advantage is access to shared > data structures without explicit access mechanisms, > let's say I strongly disagree that that is an advantage. > It is a whole set of fatal bugs waiting to happen. > > Please enlighten me if there are any -other- > qualities of this model which are supposed to be > advantageous to the people paying for and using > the programs. I count faster development as an > advantage, increased maintenance (bugs) as a > disadvantage. The second strongly outweighs the > first.
Just use google, you'll find any number of academic and research papers outlining the advantages and disadvantages of threads. I'm not an advocate of threads, simply playing devil's advocate because you patently refuse to believe this is anything but a mutually exclusive proposition. Is it not possible to decompose a complex program into a well-secured multi-process program, where one process leverages threads to perform something simple, massively SIMD parallel, and easy to verify? Not like this will matter, you've already made up your mind. Let the thread die. --david
