The two comments are obviously not intended to be so closely related, mine unintended enemy, as anyone who is not “mine unintended enemy” would very plainly understand. (Do you downvote my posts both as yourself and using some sock-puppet account? Just curious.)
There are two very-valid points contained in the aforementioned reply:
-
That you don’t need to futz around with too-much manually written code ... and the bugs and annoyances that go with it, e.g. in the OP’s original solution ... because CPAN is well-equipped with solutions that other folks have already written.
-
That it is very useful, in any multi-thread or multi-process solution, to use “work to do” queues, with a limited number of workers who consume entries from the queue. The number of workers is independent from the number of requests that need to be serviced. An existing CPAN package is employed to implement the queue and all of its perhaps operating-system-specific ugliness.
What, then, is “the point?” Easy. At first, you approach this language with the notion that “I have to write this.” Then, you discover that, thanks to CPAN, you don’t “have to write this.” You do not have to stumble-around with code that is literally a take-off of Unix fork() when there is, perhaps unbeknownst to you, a package like Parallel::ForkManager at your beck and call. That’s huge. But not obvious.
Quite frankly, good sir, your ongoing determination to conduct a vendetta against me clouds your own vision. I think that even “newbies” are likely to be professional computer programmers who are very able indeed to know when a particular package, cited only as a “for instance,” is or is not appropriate to their particular project. Yeah, I’ll just betcha that they do know that “threads and processes play by different rules in most operating systems,” without either you or I having any moral obligation to educate them concerning this point. So perhaps we should all simply trust the newbies on that score, as peculiar as that thought may initially seem. I will wager that neither you nor I are, in fact, “the smartest kids in this school.” And, yeah, I am perfectly aware that you have earned many times more experience-points than have I, so I am not presuming that this discussion is “among equals.”
| [reply] |
(Do you downvote my posts both as yourself and using some sock-puppet account?
No. I don't use sock puppets. I am quite happy to have my actions accounted for.
Which means at least one other person recognises your crap for what it is and feels strongly enough to take action.
For the rest. Nothing but noise. You really think an experienced programmer fork bombs themselves and has to ask why it happened.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
| [reply] |
