Then it's possible I was doing something wrong to produce the clunky thread behavior I was seeing (with the timeslices not being distributed very well),
I don't suppose you retained the code?
Unfortunately about 95% of the bad press that Perl's threads get is due to people writing poor code and then blaming threads. Or worse, people who have never attempted to write a threaded Perl program, reporting and re-reporting the same three bad experiences of those brave souls that did try them--over and over and over.
or else Windows threads just do that.
No, There is nothing wrong with windows scheduling. And that is even more pervasive.
If those that have switched to Linux had put as much effort into understanding their win32 systems as they are forced to learn about their *nix systems before they can do the simplest task, they may well have found that they didn't need to switch in the first place.
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] |
| [reply] |
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you need to know about that "things you need to know" post and tell me if you still think that digging up that old, outdated thread from 2 1/2 years and 6 major releases of Perl ago is still relevant?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] |