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

From: Johan Nilsson (r.johan.nilsson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 08:00:36

Anthony Williams wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Johan Nilsson wrote:

[snip]

>>> 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)
>
> All a bit vague.
>
> It might well give better performance to code UNIX APIs directly in
> terms of the Windows native API rather than the Win32 API. It makes
> sense to me --- the fewer abstraction layers between user code and
> the underlying OS, the
> better. That's actually precisely my argument above.
>
> Note also that V3.0 is being reviewed, which doesn't include pthreads.
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/pthreads0.mspx
>
> Demonstrating that it is possible to code pthreads in terms of the
> native Windows API, especially if you're writing a whole UNIX-interop
> layer, including a full POSIX C library.

[... nodding my head in violent agreement ...]

/ Johan