Re: C++ Threads, what's the status quo?
Dilip wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I do it every day. I know how to write multi-threaded applications.
There are probably 10,000's of programmers who do. One should not
assume that others are unable to do that which he cannot.
Ooh! Bold assertion. Exactly the opposite of my experience. I am yet
to meet a guy who knows a synchronization primitive from his backside
and this is after he wrote an application that spawned 45 threads to do
some activity.
That's why I wrote ten's of thousands instead of millions. I could take
the computer science students from the top computer science schools
around the world. I think I would be able to find 10,000's of people
in that group who understand the basics of synchronization.
I am going to give the committee the benefit of the doubt and assume
that at least some of them understand the basics of synchronization and
OS design. But the more I read this thread (no pun intended), the more
I get the feeling is that real problem is simply that there
C++-is-lacking-thread support crowd is primarily composed of people who
have very little or no experience with multi-threading.
Good heavens! How did a statement like that pass the moderators? This
guy is giving the benefit of doubt to Hans Boehm? This kind of dual
standards is very confusing. In another thread (subject: "Threads -
When?") I tried to correct James Kanze's unfair (and uninformed)
characterization of Jeffrey Richter as someone who has "no clue what
multithreading is all about" and it never showed up even after 4 days
and some thing like the above breezes right past in?
It is not a dual standard. The moderators let it pass probably because
I was not the one who originally hinted that. And let's face it -
there are lurkers in this group (trust me) reading this thread, and
there is a strong polarization going on here. I can assure you that I
am not the only one who feels that there is a disconnect regarding the
difficulty to which multi-threading is done.
Anyway, to the OP -- can you please read this:
http://www.artima.com/cppsource/threads_meeting.html
before adopting that elitist attitude.
Hmm....reading this link gave me the same feeling I get when we were
talking about whether C++ should be "migrated" to CLI, whether we
should add GC to the language, whether the type system of C++ was
fundamental or should be integrated with Microsoft's .NET CTS...
....basically, everything that involved changing C++ in such a way that
it would be more like languages that are not like C++.
There is a pattern that seems to be going on. I will post more in a
separate when I think I have figured out what that pattern is.
-Le Chaud Lapin-
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]