> If your point is that threads are easily used poorly, you could as
> easily argue that the C programming language is easy to use badly, point
> out some of the huge numbers of bad C programs and programmers, and
> determine that nobody should program in C. This sort of argument is silly.
> A good tool that is hard to use is still a good tool for those who know how
> to use it. Masters write good code, and beginners write crap. Compare the
> work of masters of related paradigms to compare on an equal basis.
Threaded code is hard to write, not just hard to learn how to write.
A good tool that is hard to use is still hard to use for those who know
how to use it. Certainly non-beginnership with threads or synchronization
in general doesn't come easily... And by now I am, if not a master with
threads and synchronization, at least an expert; I've been doing what
I'm talking about for a while now.
> Lets end this thread now before it becomes even more silly.
Have you ever tried to implement hallucinations of pink elephants using
threads? The champagne bubbles get up your nose and corrupt the
malloc control structures. Very bad for the avionics, don't you
know: sneezing makes it hard to keep hold of the magic feather.
Keith
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html