It's hard not to reply to this kind of message but there is so much
"anti-thread hype" here that someone obviously has to stand up to it.
This reply isn't aimed just at Larry but at all the anti-thread-rant
people with 0 threads == 0 problems attitude.
On Tuesday 19 June 2001 18:09, Larry McVoy wrote:
> "If you think you need threads then your processes are too fat"
> ``Think of it this way: threads are like salt, not like pasta. You
> like salt, I like salt, we all like salt. But we eat more pasta.''
Here are more from the same basket you obviously got the first quote from:
------------------------------------
Virtual memory is only for unskilled programmers who don't know how to use
overlays.
------------------------------------
Protected memory is a constant 10% CPU hog needed only by undisciplined
programmers who can't keep their memory writes in their own process space.
------------------------------------
> Threads are a really bad idea.
I could *say* the same about Alans co-routines and Async IO :-). But it
would be foolish of me to criticize something I haven't used.
There is more than one way how to skin a dinosaur. And threads are one
way of doing it. You don't like it ? FINE. But don't go bashing it.
Probably most people bash threads becouse of a silly way POSIX designed
(designed is an overstatement) their pthread API and becouse UNIX was
around before threads thus probably making every UNIX thread support a
hacked and not a designed tool.
Other OSes have certainly proven threads to be nice and usable.
And here is another one for you quotes page:
------------------------------------
If you can't stick your head out of your own backyard please... don't
go and crtiticize the world... :-)
------------------------------------
-- best regards, Rok Papeľ. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/