Re: [boost] Re: Threads docs updated in CVS

From: Ross Smith (ross.s_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-07 21:39:13

williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 
> I still wish that you could formally discuss the various parts of the
> design that you disagree with so that we can actually determine if
> there's some design flaws in Boost.Threads.  I'd really like to know
> precisely why Boost.Threads won't be any use to you, and if there
> could be ways to make it useful to you.

We've been through this and got nowhere. My main objections -- and I'm
stating these here again just for the record, not because I want to open
the argument again -- are that it uses too much pthread-specific
terminology (e.g. "join"), it uses condition variables instead of
events, it allows threads to be abandoned (detached), and it allows
cancellation. Oh, and (although I didn't bring this up before; if it was
discussed earlier I missed it) I've never been able to see the point of
thread specific storage.

I've given up on the whole CV-vs-event mess; to be perfectly honest,
I've come to the conclusion that most people have been brainwashed by
the "Unix is always right and Windows is always wrong" school of
thought, and aren't prepared to discuss the matter rationally.

-- 
Ross Smith <ross.s_at_[hidden]> The Internet Group, Auckland, New Zealand
========================================================================
"Unix has always lurked provocatively in the background of the operating
system wars, like the Russian Army."                  -- Neal Stephenson