Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 05:55:58

Johan Nilsson wrote:
> 
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > Anthony Williams wrote:
> >
> >> For a non-pthreads platform, it might make sense to implement
> >> pthreads in terms of the C++ interface, which is implementes in terms
> >> of the native API, rather than implement the C++ interface in terms
> >> of pthreads, which is then implemented in terms of the native API.
> >
> > Yes, this is possible, and there are no technical reasons to avoid
> > this implementation approach. There are, how should I put that,
> > ideological reasons to not target non-pthread platforms directly,
> > though.
> 
> Wow, this caught my eye when lurking around. Are we promoting
> Windows-bashing for its own sake here ;-)

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/pl/xml/02/07/29/020729plmsu.xml 
(REVIEWS: A nod toward Unix... PROS: + Bypasses Win32 API for performance 
                                     + Superior performance to Win32 API 
                                     + Price is unbeatable) 

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/pthreads0.mspx

regards,
alexander.