in reply to Re^4: thread/fork boss/worker framework recommendation
in thread thread/fork boss/worker framework recommendation
I wouldn't consider myself a beginner with threads and neither would I consider myself an expert, journeyman is probably about right. But, I do have about 35 years of experience with a multitude of different languages and have learned a few things that are true of every one of them. #1 - the less repetitive typing used the fewer the bugs, and #2 - I would rather stand on the shoulders of giants by using their knowledge than become a giant on my own.
That paragraph brings two thoughts to mind.
As a bolt-on after-the-fact addition to Perl, it has its limitations and peculiarities. It can be really quite effective for many types of concurrent algorithms, but does require that you are aware of it quirks in order to get the best from it.
The approach it requires for many problems is often quite different from other threading models.
For the most part they've been written as a first attempt by people for whom iThreads is their first real experience of threading of any form, and based upon very dubious analogies.
They are over-complex, badly tested and often written in isolation of any real application. Hence they may seem to run for some purely demonstration application, but fall in a heap when you try to use them for anything remotely practical.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^6: thread/fork boss/worker framework recommendation
by learnedbyerror (Monk) on Dec 01, 2011 at 18:18 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 01, 2011 at 19:08 UTC |