While I was reading this thread, I had a sudden, blinding vision of the future.

Programmers will start long, boring flamewars claiming that people who don't know how to use thread() aren't real programmers and are using toy languges, in much the same way C programmers have been annoying Perl programmers over the lack of malloc() and pointer arithmetic. The discussion threads will continue as various camps make their points, occaisionally interrupted by somebody claiming inanely that when they were programming 50 years ago, nobody needed threads, and everybody built their own computers too. This state of affairs will continue until someone releases a language that is good and fun to program in and contains enough cool parallelising tools that everyone is happy. It might even be perl7.

Don't believe me? Scroll up

For my part, it's enough that I use a language where I can indicate that certain sections can be parallel and then the compiler can choose to use threads, forks or clusters. This language is not perl, incidentally.

___________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.


In reply to Re: Parrot, threads & fears for the future. by jepri
in thread Parrot, threads & fears for the future. by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":