I was just wondering, does Ruby have to use it's own threading
implementation even on operating systems that have native threads? Is there
an advantage to either scenario?

-Chris

"Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000 / hypermetrics.com> wrote in message
news:001901c09635$413fb0a0$01f9fea9 / austin.rr.com...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: anthony cagle <acagle / subimo.com>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:07 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:10779] Re: Suggestion for threading model
>
>
> > If you're referring to the CYC project, it spun out as a company, Cycorp
> > which appears to still be operational (www.cyc.com).
> >
>
> Thanks very much for that reference, Anthony...
> that does indeed seem to be what I was
> remembering...
>
> Hal
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000 / hypermetrics.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: ruby-talk ML
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:10711] Re: Suggestion for threading model
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen White <spwhite / chariot.net.au>
> > To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:12 AM
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:10708] Suggestion for threading model
> >
> >
> > [huge interesting snip]
> >
> > Here's my (mostly useless) opinion.
> >
> > In terms of modeling the universe, this might be a very
> > interesting, useful approach. After all, every object in
> > the real world has its own "world line" and there is no
> > inherent "sequence" in accessing them.
> >
> > As long as we're dreaming, I'd assign a separate
> > processor to each object instance. And the instances
> > wouldn't share any code among them.
> >
> > The universe implements True Concurrency in possibly the
> > strictest sense of the word... probably without even a
> > quantized timeslice... and there is no evidence that God
> > does timeslicing anyway... :)
> >
> > So in a sense I like this idea (more long term than short).
> >
> > However, in terms of practicality and ease of implementation,
> > I think there might be huge problems.
> >
> > To exaggerate a notch or three, it's rather like the idea of
> > building a giant expert system with millions of rules, giving it
> > a natural language interface, and slowly dumping all of human
> > knowledge into it. (Things like this have been proposed
> > seriously.)
> >
> > To all who propose these things, I say, "Fine... go do it."
> >
> > I recall an interesting 2,000,000-rule expert system proposed
> > right here in Austin at MCC... but I haven't heard from it in
> > so many years, I'd bet a nickel it's defunct.
> >
> > Hal Fulton
> >
> >
>