Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121331
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: We have a new standard! |
| Date | 2024-12-29 19:50 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20241229195025.00007ae3@yahoo.com> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <vkpelh$c5a1$1@dont-email.me> <vkr5ka$sp2b$1@dont-email.me> <cone.1735480216.541864.207895.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> <vkrsit$12eo6$1@dont-email.me> <cone.1735491465.188366.209723.1000@ripper.email-scan.com> |
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:57:45 -0500 Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes: > > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 08:50:16 -0500 > > Sam <sam@email-scan.com> gabbled: > >> But C++20 jumped the shark, when the standardization process was > >> hijacked by Microsoft in order to cram coroutines into the > >> language, which noone wanted, cared, or asked for, simply because > >> the standard threading model in Windows blows chunks, performance > >> wise, and Microsoft desperately needed a multithreading model that > >> did not suck. > > > > I looked at co-routines and wondered wtf the author(s) was smoking. > > How its supposed to be simpler than simply using a local state > > machine beats the fsckout of me. > > Everything will make sense to you when you look at the co-routines > proposal, and note its authorship: > > https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4402.pdf > > Visual C++ does not have an impressive track record of zippy > adoptions of new C++ language feature. Most of the time it gets > beaten to the punch by gcc. Weirdly, it was the first out of the gate > with co-routines. > > As I said: std::thread blows chunks on Windows. This was Microsoft's > solution. > That makes no sense. If Microsoft was so concerned about lack of competitiveness of std::thread under Windows then it would campaign for addition to the standard of non-joinable threads (a.k.a. thread pools, a.k.a. work items) rather than of coroutines. May be, also for addition of IO completion ports, although those are much harder to standardize in OS-independent manner. The third possibility would be addition of stackful co-routines (a.k.a. fibers, a.k.a. cooperatively scheduled threads). Stackless coroutines of C++ serve non-trivially different purposes than all things mentioned above and unlikely to replace threads except in *very* unusual circumstances.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-27 21:51 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-27 20:11 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-28 10:19 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-28 16:20 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:32 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-29 14:51 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:16 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 08:34 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-30 09:34 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 15:37 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2024-12-30 15:08 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-30 18:06 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 17:55 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-01 16:05 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2024-12-30 00:12 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-30 00:44 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 03:17 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! boltar@caprica.org - 2024-12-30 12:00 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 15:52 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 18:06 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Pavel <pauldontspamtolk@removeyourself.dontspam.yahoo> - 2024-12-30 22:26 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 03:14 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 16:05 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 16:02 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-30 17:58 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-31 10:54 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 13:40 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-30 13:25 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-30 17:15 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-04 21:40 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2024-12-28 13:05 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 09:43 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-29 08:50 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-12-29 22:33 +0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:17 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-12-30 01:08 +0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 17:11 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 16:15 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2024-12-29 11:57 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2024-12-29 17:08 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-29 19:50 +0200
csiph-web