John Carter wrote:
> 
> Almost always threading is a fast and filthy fix on something that can 
> be done better as multiprocesses. It is a kludge resulting from early 
> MS-Windows not having a fast implementation of "fork()"

I strongly disagree, but I've met enough folks that run screaming from 
threads that I'm not surprised by your concern.  I certainly won't waste 
my breath trying to convince anybody that threading is more than a 
"kludge" or a "fast and filthy fix".  Threading has its place in almost 
any programmer's toolkit.

Austin Ziegler wrote:
 >
 > Right now, Ruby can't be safely used with multithreaded applications
 > or libraries; that should change if at all possible. This probably
 > means that we need OS-level threading, but I'd love to keep Ruby's
 > green threads as it's all that I've ever needed.

If Ruby is not thread-safe, that's just an annoying bug, not a missing 
feature.  Making Ruby thread-safe is almost certainly simpler than 
implementing OS-level threading, but it would be a good first step.

-- 
Glenn Parker | glenn.parker-AT-comcast.net | <http://www.tetrafoil.com/>