On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:18 , Bill Kelly wrote:
> From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger / qwest.com>
>> Really, the only time that I've needed native thread support is for
>> extending existing C libraries. I don't see the upside for general
>> concurrency, since we're not getting multi-core support anyway.
>
> No multi-core support... ever?

No multi-core support yet.

> I had presumed native threads were a step in that direction.  (No?)

It is.  We're going from one thread to many threads with a global  
lock.  Fine-grained locking is both expensive and hard.  It has taken  
FreeBSD years to move from a global lock to fine grained locking.

> What I've been looking forward to is embedding Ruby in a multi-
> threaded C++ app, and someday being able to have any C++ thread
> call directly into the Ruby interpreter.

If you've embedded ruby, you may be able to have multiple C++ threads  
running and one ruby thread running (out of N ruby threads).

--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars