RE: Threads [Was: Re: 64 bit euphoria]
On 25 Apr 2005, at 3:43, Mario Steele wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, interpreted Euphoria is slow, cause it's sequential. Each instruction at
> the proper placement. Threads would allow for simultanious instruction
> execution, in an enviroment that offers a safe way in which to do that with.
The problem is: the entire OS (and everything in/on/under it) is sequential
and timesliced. Threads in Eu would eliminate the blocking action of the Eu
app not getting anything done until the OS returns control to it, because the
OS would effectively see more than one Eu app. The primary app would
launch more "apps" with specialized control over them (see Al Getz's
windows server). So RobC's assertion (and mine, to a certain limit) is: we
can do more than one Eu app now, controlling the "sub app threads" with the
memshare msg passing libs or sockets or etc. Granted this is more
complicated for the programmer until a reuseable framework for it is built.
Also unnoticed is the option for linking multiple machines running different
OSs. With more than one i86 cpu core per "chip" coming out soon (and
people think that is new??), separate apps may be much faster than true
threads.
Your mileage may vary,
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
