A perfect example of exactly what I mean.
Now read the things you need to know about that "things you need to know" post and tell me if you still think that digging up that old, outdated thread from 2 1/2 years and 6 major releases of Perl ago is still relevant?
- Have you (or liz) tried threads in the interim?
- Do you feel that you are conveying timely and pertinent information? Or just grinding an axe?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
I haven't read your post, now I did.
++, interesting read, I mostly agree with many points of that
Still, I am not agree to waste plenty of resources just to accomplish some simple tasks. I do not want to get rid of car and use trucks just because I decided to pack my small boxes into huge containers.
Closer to your current point, there were no "6 major releases of Perl".
You probably meant some maintenance releases between 5.8.0 and 5.8.7?
Those are even not a minor releases, those are even less than that, those are maintenance, or patch releases (in my, probably broken, classification).
Did I tried threading recently? - yes, I did, in 5.8.6
As you already guessed, I failed, namely within Tk+Threads on Win32.
My attempt will probably fit into your classification of incorrect attempts, but, in my opinion, those were sane enough.
On the other side, I agree with an opinion that threads will mature faster if larger user base will be; and any support will stuck if all refuse trying.
add: sorry for my unperfect English. Some people say it is unperfect but perfectly adequate, I don't know :)
All I do know - I am unperfect :):):)
Best regards,
Courage, the Cowardly Dog
| [reply] |
Somehow, I love threads! :)
| [reply] |
