On Jun 9, 2009, at 1:23 AM, s.ross wrote:

> Poking through the Apple press releases today, I sat up and took  
> notice when I saw that they were putting a fair amount of pretty  
> public emphasis on concurrency as the silver bullet for faster  
> computing when Snow Leopard comes out. If we stipulate that  
> concurrency is fundamentally a good solution of a certain class of  
> problems, here were the questions I immediately had:
>
> - My understanding is that the 1.9 implementation of threads is to  
> use native threads. But the caveat is that the GIL is still in  
> place. What does this mean in practice as it applies to increasing  
> throughput by distributing load across processor cores?
>
> - I'm trying to parse the fiber vs. thread distinction and it feels  
> to me like fibers are a leaner, meaner version of the 1.8.x green  
> threads, but that they will always run on the same core. Am I  
> missing something here?

What I think you're getting at here is, yes, threading still isn't the  
way to get real concurrency on Ruby 1.9.  If you really want to do two  
things at once, you're going to need processes in Ruby.

James Edward Gray II