some sane words, for sure

Followup-To	comp.std.c
Newsgroups	comp.std.c, comp.programming.threads, comp.unix.programmer
Subject	some sane words, for sure
References	<iv422a$33k$1@speranza.aioe.org> <iv576t$2lm$1@dont-email.me> <iv58m6$5vo$1@speranza.aioe.org> <4e53ba11-fea9-4896-8bb9-6b45acb6e18f@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <iv5ep3$it3$2@speranza.aioe.org>
From	"Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org>
Message-ID	<87vcvdeetf.fsf_-_@once.weird.com> (permalink)
Date	2011-07-07 18:33 -0700

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.std.c

Show all headers | View raw

I'm pretty new to this thread, and I haven't followed what's been
written very closely even since I've noticed it, but this message
contains some very sane words and words of truth.

I agree wholeheartedly with the part I quote below.  If anyone reading
this does have contact with any committee members, I really hope these
issues can be raised with the committee.


jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:
>
> If simply supporting pthreads is not so simple as I described (and
> I fear you are right) why don't we leave that part out?
>
> Why this rush to standardize another, competing standard in a highly
> complex subject matter where most committee members aren't experts?
>
> Can't we postpone this whole subject for a later edition? Why must
> the committee do something in this direction?
>
> Looking at the situation now and the errors that are discovered when we
> look deeper into this, makes obvious that this whole business is a
> VBI: a Very Bad Idea (tm).
>
> Without trying to denigrate anyone it is obvious that most committee
> members aren't experts in this thread stuff, as many people, there is
> *nothing wrong* with that. They CAN'T KNOW EVERYTHING.
>
> Both windows threads and POSIX pthreads are the work of specialists
> of the field, and they are standards pushed by a company that has
> enormous resources or by a community of users with thousands of
> developers that have tested and explored the pthread design since YEARS
> and YEARS.
>
> To believe that the C standards committee with so few resources at
> hand and with no significant user base at the start will succeed
> is beyond what I can sanely conceive. This will take a lot of
> time and an enormous effort from the committee members for dubious
> results AT BEST.

[[....]]

> Designing multi-threaded programs is notoriously difficult and
> people will be VERY reluctant to change the base support they
> are working with since years. Specially if it is fundamentally
> flawed. If you do not give the implementors the possibilty of
> using ALL (or the most crucial) features of the underlying
> OS this C API will never take off.

-- 
						Greg A. Woods
						RoboHack

<woods@robohack.ca>     living on the edge      http://www.robohack.ca/

Thread

Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 -0700
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 16:12 -0700
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 22:41 -0400
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-08 12:47 -0700
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:11 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-08 16:56 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Marcin Grzegorczyk <mgrzegor@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-07-09 23:55 +0200
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-09 18:40 -0700
  Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 01:16 +0200
    some sane words, for sure "Greg A. Woods" <woods@robohack.org> - 2011-07-07 18:33 -0700
    Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:34 -0700
      Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe sfuerst <svfuerst@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0700
        Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-09 06:57 -0400
          Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-09 13:59 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-09 14:45 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe "Chris M. Thomasson" <cristom@charter.net> - 2011-07-10 15:47 -0700
              Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-07-11 13:38 +0200
            Re: The threading specs in the standard: a new catastrophe Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-11 16:12 +0300

csiph-web