From: Cronje, Schalk (Schalk_Cronje_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-05 10:12:41
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Andrei Alexandrescu
>I think I'd be representing the opinion of the entire group by saying
>that a library-only approach is naive at best. See for example "Threads
>Cannot Be Implemented As A Library" by Hans Boehm at
>http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2004/HPL-2004-209.pdf, paper admitted
>at the prestigious conference PLDI 2005 (sign that others believe Hans
>actually makes sense). Actually I believe that any expert in threading
>would cringe at the thought that Boost.Threads made it in the C++
You definitely speak for me here. I would not like to see it go in as
part of C++0x.
>Speaking for myself about the quality of Boost.Threads' design itself,
>would add that it compares unfavorably (to use an euphemism) with many
>other threading library interface for C++ or other languages - actually
>all I know of, including unpublicized ad-hoc threading libraries
>developed in-house at various companies I've worked with.
I am much more in favour of a generic decoupled approach such as what
Kevlin Henney has suggested
df). This approach lends itself to even more generic abstractions such
as asynchronous functions as presented at Accu2005.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk