[173] in Pthreads mailing list archive
errno & multiprocessors (was Re: An idea for pthreads )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Antony Courtney)
Fri Oct 27 03:45:38 1995
To: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Cc: pthreads@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 1995 06:16:14 EDT."
<9510261016.AA18829@cujo.cygnus.com>
From: Antony Courtney <antony@apocalypse.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 00:23:40 +0200
In message <9510261016.AA18829@cujo.cygnus.com>you write:
>
> [.. lots of good arguments of why the pthreads team are trying to support
> every (platform, architecture, OS) on the planet...]
You definitely make good points about why all of these are important in
the long-term.
...But then you go on to state:
>And even if the vendor does decide to go with the POSIX standard, how
>long will it take them to get there? And get it implemented correctly?
>What are applications programmers supposed to do in the meantime --
>simply ignore those operating systems? Won't happen. Most of them will
>instead ignore threads or hack up their own code to do the same thing,
>just not as well.
By the same token, I could ask, if the pthreads group are targetting
multiprocessor support, multiple OSes, and multiple architectures all at
once, instead of just focusing on one or a few platforms, how long will
it take you all to deliver something that provides basic, correct,
well-tested functionality for a single, common, free OS such as Linux?
And what are we programmers who want to develop for such free OSes supposed
to do in the meantime?
Getting back to the point:
I'm not trying to be discouraging. I think the pthreads folks are putting
a lot of effort in and doing a great job that definitely needs doing.
I'm merely trying to suggest that it's worth considering making some small
compromises on the long-term goals (like multiprocessor support) for now, in
order to get something that works reliably on the important platforms in the
short-term.
-antony
