Dave M yawned, and wrote:
in reply to Re^5: what the history behind perl not having "real" threads
in thread what the history behind perl not having "real" threads
Anyway, I'm bored of discussing this now,
Don't feel a need to respond but something to think about -- device drivers in the linux kernel as well as modules (many of which can be built in statically or loaded dynamically), all had to be thread safe to be usable in the new kernel.
You made an interesting point that all of the 'XS' code (i.e. the binary parts of the modules) had to be thread safe before the perl could allow threads to run. Perhaps it isn't as important, but in the kernel, it was the responsibility of the 'modules' to be thread safe in an SMP kernel, the kernel going 'SMP', wasn't held up going forward unless those modules were an essential part of the core.
It seemed, essentially that it was the responsibility of the modules to become thread safe and follow the lead of the kernel than for the kernel to wait for all the modules to become 'thread' safe. If the latter had been the case, SMP, likely, would never have happened. Dunno if that's what happened w/perl or not, but there does seem to be an inordinate amount of pressure to maintain legacy compatibility at the expense of forward progress of the language.
This has so much been the case that 1) it became required for "forward progress" to become a separate, new project, and 2) has split development resources sufficiently to create questions of sustainability of the language, besides slow the development of the language.
The latter has, IMO, at least in part, been responsible for some not-insignificant amount of defections to other languages even though some of those other languages have gone through significant growing pains (such as incompatible releases (python)).
However, it's unlikely that any other course would have been possible in the perl community. Can you really see people with strong opinions, like Linus, surviving long in the p5p community?