I prefer to:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: I prefer to: by shonorio (Hermit) on Jan 14, 2007 at 11:40 UTC
I've a dream of one day we'll programming with threads simple as like we do with single threads, specially with the evolution of multiples processors. When Perl will have better tools to help-us with threads and we'll be able to use all the threads power. I have a dream .... Solli Moreira Honorio Sao Paulo - Brazil	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 14, 2007 at 12:47 UTC
I share your dream. 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". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 14, 2007 at 08:45 UTC
... use the appropriate tool for the application. 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". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by Lord Wrath (Friar) on Jan 15, 2007 at 22:13 UTC
come on, take off your 'if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail' hat. the question is not "i always" it's "i prefer". that's like saying i prefer whatever kind of ice cream is in the freezer when you actually have a favorite.	[reply]
Re^3: I prefer to: by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2007 at 00:28 UTC
that's like saying i prefer whatever kind of ice cream is in the freezer when you actually have a favorite. If I've just eaten something heavy, say pasta with cream cheese sauce, then I'll opt for something light, say lemon sorbet. On the other hand, if I've just eaten something light, sushi and salad, then I'd go for something with a bit more body. Butterscotch and Pecan ripple sounds good. So, my favorite does not depend just upon what is available, but also on the circumstances. 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". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. "Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."	[reply]
Re^4: I prefer to: by Lord Wrath (Friar) on Jan 16, 2007 at 14:41 UTC
Re^5: I prefer to: by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 16, 2007 at 14:45 UTC
Re: I prefer to -- What we really need by starX (Chaplain) on Jan 14, 2007 at 17:54 UTC
Is a new way of creating processes called spork().I don't really care what it does or why it's different from fork, as long as it is some trivial feature that is enough for the spork() zealots to get behind it, look everyone else in the eye, and say "Oh yeah, well I'm using spork()."	[reply]
Re: What we really need by jdporter (Chancellor) on Jan 14, 2007 at 20:05 UTC
Then consider your wish fulfilled: Spork. A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^2: What we really need by starX (Chaplain) on Jan 15, 2007 at 15:12 UTC
I hang my head and kick some dirt around with my toe, muttering something about it being just a joke that I really didn't put much thought into. :)	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by zerogeek (Monk) on Jan 14, 2007 at 06:30 UTC
Oh... wait! You said FORK.... This relates to Perl after all!	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by stonecolddevin (Parson) on Jan 14, 2007 at 21:44 UTC
spooning leads to forking! meh.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by tye (Sage) on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:30 UTC
spawn mutter buggered Unix bigots - tye	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by Petruchio (Vicar) on Jan 14, 2007 at 06:07 UTC
Added. Never let it be said that I am unwilling to accomodate the handicapped! :-)	[reply]
Re^3: I prefer to: by gaal (Parson) on Jan 14, 2007 at 06:28 UTC
In that case, you should add: delegate To accommodate the PHB. :-)	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by jonadab (Parson) on Jan 15, 2007 at 03:54 UTC
Okay, I do use Linux and BSD, but I'm not exactly a card-carrying Unix bigot. Non-Unix OSes I've used include PC-DOS 3.3, MS-DOS 5.0, 6.0, 6.22, Win95 OSR2, Win98SE, WinXP, Mac System 6, 7, MacOS 8, 9, BeOS 5PE, and OpenVMS 6, 7.2. Yet, I've never heard of `spawn` in this context before. And I can't seem to find it listed on Wikipedia, either. What type of system is it associated with, and what are the semantic differences between spawn versus fork or threads? Also I was under the impression that threading did not originate in the Unix universe but elsewhere were forking was more expensive, and was adopted by the Unix community only later. Was I mistaken? Sanity? Oh, yeah, I've got all kinds of sanity. In fact, I've developed whole new kinds of sanity. You can just call me "Mister Sanity". Why, I've got so much sanity it's driving me crazy.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: I prefer to: by rinceWind (Monsignor) on Jan 18, 2007 at 13:34 UTC
You mention VMS. Surely you've heard of `lib$spawn()`, not to mention the DCL command `spawn`, which is the natural way of creating a subprocess to do something different from the parent (as distinct from launching a detached process, which is roughly the equivalent of a nohup). The posix layer implements `fork`, but this is not the native VMS way of doing or thinking about things. Digital had a lot to do with the invention of threads. PThreads are a derivative of DecThreads, and VMS was one of the platforms on which they were originally targetted. The reason for this was that there is a substantial overhead in process creation - spawns were expensive, and threads provided a convenient way of multitasking inside a process's address space. -- Oh Lord, won�t you burn me a Knoppix CD ? My friends all rate Windows, I must disagree. Your powers of persuasion will set them all free, So oh Lord, won�t you burn me a Knoppix CD ? (Missquoting Janis Joplin)	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: I prefer to: by jonadab (Parson) on Jan 19, 2007 at 13:59 UTC
Re^2: I prefer to: by bart (Canon) on Feb 01, 2007 at 12:41 UTC
Yet, I've never heard of spawn in this context before. And I can't seem to find it listed on Wikipedia, either. What type of system is it associated with, and what are the semantic differences between spawn versus fork or threads? It sounds familiar to me, because of the node They didn't give me a fork so I have to eat with a spawn.. "To spawn" is to produce offspring, hence, creating a child process. No mystery there. You can do it by calling system, for example.	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by blue_cowdawg (Monsignor) on Jan 27, 2007 at 19:16 UTC
mutter buggered Unix bigots I just tried to find it in an archive somewhere and failed by that remark reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon from years ago that showed a Unix Guru type telling his protagonist "Here kid, here's a nickle, go buy yourself a real computer." One of my all time favorites and I can't find it. Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg	[reply]
Re^3: I prefer to: by liverpole (Monsignor) on Jan 27, 2007 at 21:04 UTC
Hi blue_cowdawg, Here you go. I always liked that one, too. s''(q.S:$/9=(T1';s;(..)(..);$..=substr+crypt($1,$2),2,3;eg;print$..$/	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by tbone1 (Monsignor) on Jan 16, 2007 at 16:13 UTC
I chose fork, but really I prefer to spoon. In June. 'neath the moon. At noon. Or soon. With a loon. Or raccoon. On a dune. While the Goons. Sing a tune. (But not on a Zune.) -- tbone1, YAPS (Yet Another Perl Schlub) And remember, if he succeeds, so what. - Chick McGee	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by kwaping (Priest) on Jan 14, 2007 at 17:57 UTC
Is this a double entendre poll? I can't tell for sure. --- It's all fine and dandy until someone has to look at the code.	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by grinder (Bishop) on Jan 14, 2007 at 20:22 UTC
Well, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a real Perlmonks poll! • another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by arc_of_descent (Hermit) on Jan 18, 2007 at 21:32 UTC
By spawn, I hope that implies a system() call? Then yes, If my solution requires no IPC, then I would use system() What about POE? -- Rohan	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by eriam (Beadle) on Jan 19, 2007 at 17:48 UTC
Yes definitly ! I would POE.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by swampyankee (Parson) on Jan 15, 2007 at 04:39 UTC
What? No linda? No MPI? (yes, I know they're not the same thing; MPI and Linda are true parallel programming paradigms). emc At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation. —Igor Sikorsky, reported in AOPA Pilot magazine February 2003.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by arkturuz (Curate) on Jan 15, 2007 at 13:34 UTC
Godfrey: Yes, Hell: where Satan belches fire, and enormous devils break wind both night and day! Hell: where the mind is never free from the torments of remorse, and your bottom never free from the pricking of little forks! Duke: Nooo! Spare me the little forks! Quoted from here.	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by nimdokk (Vicar) on Jan 15, 2007 at 18:50 UTC
Knew that one without even looking :-)	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by OfficeLinebacker (Chaplain) on Jan 14, 2007 at 05:31 UTC
Dang, I need to learn how to do both. Haven't needed to do either yet. (that I know of, anyway ;) I like computer programming because it's like Legos for the mind.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by blue_cowdawg (Monsignor) on Jan 18, 2007 at 18:42 UTC
Once you get the threads out of the way, forking may result in spawning... <evil grin> Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by margulies (Friar) on Jan 16, 2007 at 11:31 UTC
F**k, of course.... Oh no, wait... You said Fork.... Yeah, can be it too.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by Andrew_Levenson (Hermit) on Jan 18, 2007 at 11:42 UTC
Dance with reckless abandon. `C(qw/74 97 104 112/);sub C{while(@_){$c**=$C;print (map{chr($C!=$c?shift:pop)}$_),$C+=@_%2!=1?1:0}}` [download]	[reply] [d/l]
Re: I prefer to: by tweetiepooh (Hermit) on Jan 18, 2007 at 12:08 UTC
Sometimes I just use exec without the fork. For example, one bit of code, running under cron, needs some environment settings made and rather than using a wrapper shell script I check the settings in the script and if not present make them then exec the script over itself. Probably not the best or even a good way to do it but it does work.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by xiaoyafeng (Deacon) on Jan 16, 2007 at 06:13 UTC
fork. And what is spawn? I am trying to improve my English skills, if you see a mistake please feel free to reply or /msg me a correction	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by ferreira (Chaplain) on Jan 17, 2007 at 13:58 UTC
Spawn is a graphic novel and then a movie: http://www.spawn.com/comics/series.aspx?series_id=1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120177/ In the light of this background, spawning processes are like resurrecting running code from the ashes in a flawed agreement with the powers of darkness ;)	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by poqui (Deacon) on Jan 16, 2007 at 21:14 UTC
Thread; but on machines where that is not sufficiently supported I will fork. I don't believe that I have ever spawned.	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by wolfger (Deacon) on Jan 17, 2007 at 14:21 UTC
I don't believe that I have ever spawned. Nah... That's just for those upstream folks. -- Random Synapse Firing	[reply] [d/l]
Re: I prefer to: by jesuashok (Curate) on Jan 15, 2007 at 02:09 UTC
fork followed by exec	[reply]
Re^2: I prefer to: by gam3 (Curate) on Jan 15, 2007 at 03:21 UTC
I thought forking was followed by sleep()? -- gam3 A picture is worth a thousand words, but takes 200K.	[reply]
Re^3: I prefer to: by jesuashok (Curate) on Jan 15, 2007 at 05:04 UTC
do you mean sleep() -> fork() ? but, I meant fork() -> exec()	[reply]
Re^4: I prefer to: by virtualsue (Vicar) on Jan 15, 2007 at 20:04 UTC
Re: I prefer to: by ambrus (Abbot) on Jan 27, 2007 at 12:45 UTC
I prefer lightweight user-level threads, like ruby threads. They are ideal for both simple coroutines and hiding the select calls.	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by neniro (Priest) on Jan 27, 2007 at 23:06 UTC
respawn - like buddhists	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by vili (Monk) on Jan 29, 2007 at 20:58 UTC
"We're forked." -- Corey Ostman	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by johndageek (Hermit) on Jan 29, 2007 at 21:06 UTC
oooohhhh, you said FORK, suppose I shouldn't have voted with my glasses off. :( Enjoy! Dageek	[reply]
Re: I prefer to: by OfficeLinebacker (Chaplain) on Jan 30, 2007 at 00:00 UTC
Hi, is there a resource that discusses these phenomena for a monk who maybe is not so savvy in the ways of "forking," &c? I like computer programming because it's like Legos for the mind.	[reply]


P is for Practical
	PerlMonks