|Just another Perl shrine|
Re^6: Is Using Threads Slower Than Not Using Threads? (history)by tye (Sage)
|on Nov 08, 2010 at 01:47 UTC||Need Help??|
The result is the only way to approach a 'safe' and cross-platform implementation of threads in perl is to emulate forking.
and from 2005:
Though I think if [Perl] threads did not try to emulate fork
Perl's "threads" came to be because no Perl porter was able to remove the race conditions from trying to use real threads with Perl. So they switched to using threads to emulate fork() but much less efficiently in both memory and CPU required.
and a short time later:
Perl protects its internals by making full copies of its internals (the interpreter state and all data) -- emulating fork but less efficiently.
BrowserUk spawned multiple extended threads and subthreads railing against my stating that iThreads "emulate fork". Including such quotes as:
iThreads do not emulate fork.
(from Re^12: Utter FUD!, original emphasis preserved) and
[Perl] Threads do not emulate fork
(from Re^6: Utter FUD!) and
But neither are [iThreads] new processes--forks defining characteristic--so any allusion to that is simplistic, inaccurate and deliberately misleading.
(from Re^12: Utter FUD!). Plus lots of other complaining about people daring to mention "fork emulation".
Unfortunately, I have no idea what motivated BrowserUk to so vehemently contradict himself. Nor what he has dreamed up that leads him to claim "Tye's statement has [...] a lot of political intent" nor why he considers it "simplistic, inaccurate", and (especially) "deliberately misleading" nor what makes him say "I may have my suspicions about his reasoning" and "I am wilfully understanding Tye's motivation".
I have not seen even a solid hint as to what this "motivation" that BrowserUk has dreamed up is. Just the above extremely vague alluding to some secret motivation that I am hiding but that BrowserUk has sleuthed out but refuses to mention.
Perhaps the strong reaction is BrowserUk (in part) reacting to his previously being "simplistic, inaccurate and deliberately misleading"? Maybe that was the point of linking to the "history lesson". If so, that certainly wasn't clear to me.
I don't know. Note that I used quotations because, not understanding what BrowserUk is going on about, trying to paraphase would surely lead to worse mischaracterization (than the deliberate mischaracterization that will likely be claimed via willfully taking the quotes out of context). Well, I made it trivial to view the context in many cases, in case one is curious, and made the literal parts clear enough that super search can be used for the others.