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

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 13:10:19

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Johan Nilsson wrote:
>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>
>>>> 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.

> This is the whole point of an abstraction. The only reason we aren't using 
> it on Windows is because Microsoft doesn't supply it. The performance 
> arguments are a post-hoc rationalization. 

No, the performance arguments are not a "post-hoc rationalization".

If Microsoft supplied a pthreads API that layered on top of Win32, I might
still think it worth writing a separate win32-based implementation of the C++
API, in order to take advantage of facilities present in win32 that aren't
available in pthreads, but there would definitely be less drive to do that in
the short term.

However, Microsoft do not supply such an interface, so someone has to write
one. Writing one might be a good idea, but using it to implement the C++ API,
when the C++ API could be better written using the win32 API directly seems a
bad plan to me, especially if you could use your C++ API to implement
pthreads.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL