In article <a24gen$je1 / ftp.ee.vill.edu>, "Avdi B. Grimm" <avdi / yahoo.com>
wrote:

> --- Phil Ehrens <pehrens / nospam.ligo.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> Event loops are better than threads.  John Ousterhout may not have been
>> a very good businessman, but he's a brilliant computer scientist:
[...]
>

Why do you say that not every API has access to event-based programming?
What language (aside from Microshaft POS languages) do you know of that
doesn't implement select()? There's more than one way to skin a cat where
that's concerned, and I remember a very long thread a couple months ago
on this list about using continuation variables instead of threads in certain spots.
Resourceful, aren't they? ;-)

Part of the myth here, and I speak as a recent college graduate, is that
threads are not taught in depth enough, with the time that they deserve.
Thread synchronization is taught with the attitude, "Yeah, there's these
threads and you can synchronize them just like processes" (or at least,
that's how my prof. taught it). With a background like that, you can see
where the dilemma comes from. Not being familiar with the synchronization
primitives is not being familiar with threads. Period. This could
possibly be the cause of the exalted position some programmers put
threads in, but that's just my guess. I know monitors had my head
spinning for a little bit there :)

-- 
I sense much NT in you.
NT leads to Bluescreen.
Bluescreen leads to downtime.
Downtime leads to suffering.
NT is the path to the darkside.
Powerful Unix is.