Re: Re: Why use threads over processes, or why use processes over threads?

Forked processes default to not sharing; threads default to sharing everything.
Um, no.. Unless you're talking about the 5005threads, *they* default to sharing everything. The newer ithreads default to sharing nothing (everything gets copied at the point you start the thread, after that each thread only uses its own copy of the variables).

Personally, I found the 5005 behaviour easier to program with than the new one, but that's possibly just me..

Comment on Re: Re: Why use threads over processes, or why use processes over threads?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Why use threads over processes, or why use processes over threads? by Anonymous Monk on Nov 11, 2003 at 08:15 UTC
Personally, I found the 5005 behaviour easier to program with than the new one, but that's possibly just me.. Nope, not just you. The 5005 way was, more or less, following the standard model of sharing found elsewhere. If I had to describe the new thread model (and I've had to on a few occassions) it is as if it were a slow, bloated fork emulation but with convenience functions for synchronizing access to shared data.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Why use threads over processes, or why use processes over threads?
by Anonymous Monk on Nov 11, 2003 at 08:15 UTC

Personally, I found the 5005 behaviour easier to program with than the new one, but that's possibly just me..

Nope, not just you. The 5005 way was, more or less, following the standard model of sharing found elsewhere. If I had to describe the new thread model (and I've had to on a few occassions) it is as if it were a slow, bloated fork emulation but with convenience functions for synchronizing access to shared data.

[reply]