Re: User API still a goal?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Robert Luciani
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 1:42 am

>     I think N:M is still desireable but what is needed is some sort of

If the "micro threads" don't have to be POSIX compliant, aren't there
already many languages which provide plenty of concurrency within
threads? Some are even SMP aware and don't do stupid scheduling decisions.

Erlang, C++0x, compilers and virtual machines will probably be
responsible for providing the preferred concurrency abstractions of the
future. I think people are tired of "worrying" about concurrency.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: User API still a goal?, Matthew Dillon, (Wed Jun 4, 10:06 am)
Re: User API still a goal?, Michael Neumann, (Wed Jun 4, 11:08 am)
Re: User API still a goal?, Chris Turner, (Mon Jun 9, 9:55 pm)
Re: User API still a goal?, Robert Luciani, (Tue Jun 10, 1:42 am)
Re: User API still a goal?, Nicolas Thery, (Tue Jun 10, 3:25 am)
Re: User API still a goal?, Robert Luciani, (Tue Jun 10, 3:39 am)