"A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software"
newsgroups at jhrothjr.com
Sat Jan 8 16:02:30 EST 2005
"Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message
news:b9GdnaH9LN5mvX3cRVn-iQ at powergate.ca...
> John Roth wrote:
>> I have yet to write a multi-thread program for performance reasons.
> If we include in the set of things covered by the term
> "performance" not only throughput, but also latency, then
> I suspect you actually have written some multithreaded programs
> for "performance" reasons.
> *I* certainly have: that's easily the reason for threading
> in 95% of the cases I've dealt with, and I suspect those of
> many others.
Actually, I've never written a multi-threaded program for
any reason. There were only two times I had to deal with concurrency:
one was a very nice co-routine implementation (HASP,
the predecessor to the JES2 subsystem on MVS), and
the other was event driven (on an IBM SP). The former
system didn't have a threading library, let alone a lightweight
one, and the event driven design was a lot simpler for the
second application - and I did consider all three options.
More information about the Python-list