Re: Threads [Was: Re: 64 bit euphoria]
Way back when I made my own eueu, it was simulating multithreading. It
would make multiple instances of the local variables, and make the
globals global. It would call do_instuction a few times, then
switch_instance, and do_instruction some more. If threading was
simulated at the interpreter level, like mine, then the parser
situation would be alleviated, and no real threading/locks/reentracy
checking would be necessary. Buy interpreter simulated threads would
still stop all threads for blocking calls.
Dan
On 4/28/05, Jason Gade <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> posted by: Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com>
>
> Matt Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Jason Gade wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip much talk about threads>
> > >
> > > First let me say that I really don't think that Euphoria needs thread=
s. I don't believe
> > > that the language needs the extra complication.
> > >
> > > Any program that needs simulated threads instead of multiple processe=
s can make an
> > > event loop and set up either round-robin or timer callbacks.
> > >
> >
> > The real argument for threads, IMHO, is that the current thinking is th=
at
> > we're at a virtual dead end as far as processor performance goes, and t=
he
> > future is in multi-cored machines, which a single thread can't take
> > advantage of. It's perhaps not Euphoria's most common use, but for tho=
se
> > of us who do calculations or simulations in Euphoria, this could be rea=
lly
> > important. Multiple processes are an option, but may not be the easies=
t
> > or best way to implement a given algorithm. Not to mention the backgro=
und
> > processing that a game might be doing.
> >
> > And while processes are cheaper than threads in the Win32 realm, it's n=
ot
> > so in the *nix universe.
> >
> > Matt Lewis
> >
>
> Aren't threads lightweight processes by definition? I think that threads=
are "cheaper" than processes in any context.
>
> But I think you are right in that processes are cheaper in win32 than in =
*nix. But *nix has a longer history of multi-processing (background proces=
ses) than in threads.
>
> I think for games, the simulated approach would still probably be best. =
But I do understand that scientific simulation usually uses threads. I cer=
tainly don't know much about it, though.
>
> Are there enough people doing complex simulation in Euphoria to make it w=
orthwhile? Are there better tools than Euphoria for the job?
>
> I'm not really against it as long as it is kept simple; I just see little=
need for it by the majority of users. And as I said in another post, Euph=
oria has some things that are more important to implement or fix first.
>
> =========================
=============
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
>
>
>
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
