Since I don't think BrowserUK subscribes here, I'll paste in the remarks he attached to your earlier paste, just to help get the discussion going, and on the assumption this will not be regarded as antisocial. :)
Larry BrowserUK wrote: > > -there are the interpreter processes. > > Inventing (overloaded) terminology will just create confusion. Very > unhelpful in a context that suffers more than its fair share already. > > - The interpreter implements a scheduler, just like POE. > > POE does *NOT* implement a "scheduler". > It implements a state machine--with the controlling state both > global and shared. > It provides no concurrency. Not even the illusion of concurrency. > > It does a little of this; and a little of that; and a little of > something else; but only one thing at a time regardless of how many > cores are available. > > And if one of those little bits of something hangs, the entire edifice > hangs. > > -3 - The scheduler, ulike POE, should be able to schedule in > several OS threads, such that any OS thread may raise any > waiting process. > > And how are you going to implement that? > > The only way would be for there to be multiple concurrent (kernel > threaded) instances of the state-machine running sharing (as in shared > state concurrency) their controlling state. > > This re-creates all the very worst problems of: 505threads, green > threads; and Windows3 cooperative scheduling. > > Besides that it would be a nightmare to implement; it would be an even > worse nightmare to program,
