"MonkeeSage" <MonkeeSage / gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d0ee96af-656e-4dd8-8a17-bcf46e4ff69a / e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 10:53 am, "Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality"
> <ihates... / hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "MonkeeSage" <MonkeeS... / gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Ps. The SyncEnumerator class from generator does the same thing as
>> > izip:
>>
>> > SyncEnumerator.new([1,2,3], [4,5,6]).each { | x, y |
>> >  puts x, y
>> > }
>>
>>     Thank you, MonkeeSage, this is exactly what I'm looking for!
>>     It's interesting that generators are slow enough to warn users about 
>> its
>> lack of speed!  Do you know if it would be any faster implemented with
>> continuations?  I'm surprised it's so slow considering Ruby employs green
>> threads...
>
> Other way around. ;) The continuation version is slow. The threaded
> version is fast.

    Ah, that's good to hear!  I was confused there.  It looks like, as long 
as we have these green threads, we won't really need continuations.
    This is starting to get off topic but, if you happen to know, if Ruby is 
moving towards native threads, will we keep green threads around?  They're 
useful things, even with native threads available...