Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121305 > unrolled thread

Re: We have a new standard!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#121331

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web