I'd criticize it differently

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #188,857 by ben_tilly 1/3/05 2:16:22 AM Reply	I'd criticize it differently He seems to assume that we want applications hogging all system resources. I generally don't. As for me, my development practices will remain the same. I'll continue to write single-threaded Perl on a server with many processes. Naive parallelism is fairly easy to write and scales very well to multiple machines/CPUs. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #188,875 by drewk 1/3/05 12:25:33 PM Reply	That's true for servers, less so for workstations When your process is one of hundreds or thousands running on a server, each one can be its own thread. When your process is a video editing suite on a high-end graphics workstation it might be the only "application" running. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #189,071 by ben_tilly 1/5/05 12:40:11 AM Reply	True... But my point remains. For many developers, naive parallelism is enough. For many more, it is fairly easy to get to the first stage through dividing your program up into a small number of dedicated processes that communicate over sockets. For instance high-end video rendering software already divides the problem into smaller ones that can be farmed out easily. They do this so that they can distribute work over clusters. But the fact remains that for some things concurrency comes cheaply, and for many more you can achieve high levels of effective currency in a very naive way, and avoid a lot of pain in doing so. Unless you know that you can't get the job done with that simple-minded approach, I would not recommend going to a pervasively multi-threaded approach. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Concurrency: the race is on - (FuManChu) - (40) - Jan. 2, 2005, 10:37:48 AM EST

Interesting, but ... - (Another Scott) - (4) - Jan. 2, 2005, 11:12:25 AM EST

I think he's talking to shrinkwrappers - (FuManChu) - Jan. 2, 2005, 09:06:36 PM EST

I'd criticize it differently - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Jan. 3, 2005, 02:16:22 AM EST

That's true for servers, less so for workstations - (drewk) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2005, 12:25:33 PM EST

True... - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 5, 2005, 12:40:11 AM EST

Favorite quote - (drewk) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2005, 12:12:21 PM EST

Speaking of quotes... (new thread) - (folkert) - Jan. 3, 2005, 12:52:47 PM EST

Just use databases and transactions. Fixed! -NT - (tablizer) - (32) - Jan. 8, 2005, 05:59:50 PM EST

Yes and no... - (Simon_Jester) - Jan. 8, 2005, 07:23:06 PM EST

And again, you demonstrate yourself to be wrong - (ben_tilly) - (30) - Jan. 10, 2005, 10:16:55 AM EST

Up with people - (FuManChu) - (24) - Jan. 10, 2005, 12:19:17 PM EST

No connection - (ben_tilly) - (23) - Jan. 10, 2005, 10:33:23 PM EST

Questions - (tablizer) - (22) - Jan. 15, 2005, 04:07:02 AM EST

Don't try to solve the problem - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 15, 2005, 09:12:24 AM EST

Dude, you are rude. Grow some people skills - (tablizer) - (4) - Jan. 16, 2005, 02:16:01 AM EST

This was one of your most hilarious posts ever, Bryce. -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - Jan. 17, 2005, 01:57:50 AM EST

I am learning NOT to flame back. Me grow up........I think -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Jan. 17, 2005, 10:59:48 PM EST

A: Doubt it. B: Still, YOU calling SOMEONE ELSE rude=>funnee -NT - (CRConrad) - Jan. 18, 2005, 02:00:54 AM EST

Yes, you did answer something - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 19, 2005, 06:29:29 PM EST

lock and load - (cforde) - (1) - Jan. 17, 2005, 03:18:05 AM EST

re: lock and load - (tablizer) - Jan. 17, 2005, 11:24:42 PM EST

Question for you - (drewk) - (13) - Jan. 16, 2005, 04:31:58 PM EST

All the damn time - (broomberg) - (9) - Jan. 16, 2005, 08:01:04 PM EST

No hints from the peanut gallery - (drewk) - (8) - Jan. 16, 2005, 08:05:00 PM EST

Give him the benefit - (broomberg) - (7) - Jan. 16, 2005, 08:11:15 PM EST

Fairy nuff - (drewk) - (6) - Jan. 16, 2005, 08:29:32 PM EST

Barry's right; overnormalization is 1 of Bryce's hobbyhorses -NT - (CRConrad) - (4) - Jan. 17, 2005, 01:57:15 AM EST

Huh? What did I over-normalize? -NT - (tablizer) - (3) - Jan. 17, 2005, 11:25:14 PM EST

It means the opposite of what you seem to think it does. HTH -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - Jan. 18, 2005, 01:57:24 AM EST

Okay then, what did I UNDER-normalize? - (tablizer) - (1) - Jan. 18, 2005, 09:33:12 PM EST

SIGH... "A hobby-horse" means, something you like to... - (CRConrad) - Jan. 19, 2005, 10:29:32 AM EST

Note: in this case it really is a bad idea - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 19, 2005, 06:35:22 PM EST

Re: Question for you - (tablizer) - (2) - Jan. 17, 2005, 11:17:29 PM EST

Also called trade-offs. - (static) - (1) - Jan. 18, 2005, 01:25:03 AM EST

re: Also called trade-offs - (tablizer) - Jan. 18, 2005, 09:53:21 PM EST

Ah yes, the Upperson procedure - (tuberculosis) - Jan. 10, 2005, 06:31:02 PM EST

Guilty until proven innocent? -NT - (tablizer) - (3) - Jan. 15, 2005, 04:00:49 AM EST

No, you said something stupid - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Jan. 15, 2005, 09:16:55 AM EST

You don't seem to disagree anywhere - (tablizer) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2005, 02:44:41 AM EST

I disagree with, "Fixed!" - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 19, 2005, 11:59:54 PM EST

Somewhat classier digs than the last version.
112 ms