Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail From: Grant Edwards Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: threading Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:30:37 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl.comtrol.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1396989037 28742 64.122.56.22 (8 Apr 2014 20:30:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:30:37 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:69903 On 2014-04-08, Sturla Molden wrote: > On 07/04/14 05:56, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Roy Smith wrote: >>> There is (or at least, was) another reason. Creating a new process used >>> to be far more expensive than creating a new thread. In modern Unix >>> kernels, however, the cost difference has become much less, so this is >>> no longer a major issue. >> >> Unix maybe, but what about Windows? Is it efficient to create >> processes under Windows? > > Processes are very heavy-weight on Windows. Not surprising given its VMS heritage. I remember running shell scripts under VMS on a VAX-11/780 that took hours to do what would have taken minutes on an LSI-11 running Unix. The whole Unix "small tools working together" paradigm is based on the assumption that process creation and death are fast and cheap. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I selected E5 ... but at I didn't hear "Sam the Sham gmail.com and the Pharoahs"!