Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 15:45:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v9t4vm$2eg9b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <20240408075547.000061e8@gmail.com>
 <g52cnWOOwoz_son7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <uvbe3m$2cun7$1@dont-email.me> <uvbfii$3mom0$1@news.xmission.com>
 <20240412094809.811@kylheku.com> <87il0mm94y.fsf@tudado.org>
 <way-20240413091747@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87il0lldf8.fsf@tudado.org>
 <choices-20240413123957@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <v9lm2k$12qhv$1@dont-email.me> <v9m4gd$14scu$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240815182717.189@kylheku.com> <v9npls$1fjus$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9posc$1rpdj$1@dont-email.me> <v9pvoo$1sn55$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9r60h$2289h$2@dont-email.me> <v9sa91$2afht$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9sbf4$2artq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9shqt$2bn73$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 17:45:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f21369057de5f450272cea9b68abe9f0";
	logging-data="2572587"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1810/rlkyvk8IyP6l/WnCoQ"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xXszq1BhG/W8zKxgQT4/dKK+8tk=
Bytes: 3607

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 12:19:10 +0200
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> boringly babbled:
>On 2024-08-18 10:30, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> The windows process API is crippled which is why threading is the main
>> parallel processing method in Windows and has been since 3.0.
>
>Threading is the main method because of its performance in a tight 
>coupled application. Crossing the process borders is very expensive.

Most (all?) versions of unix use copy-on-write when forking so while the
processes are only reading its no different to threading. I doubt windows
implements CoW since - in user space at least - it can't do fork and you
wouldn't need it for executing a brand new process from scratch.

Also shared memory is pretty cheap too.

>> otherwise please give some examples. However I distincly remember trying to
>> port  server to windows only to discover that sockets are some wierd
>> structure in windows instead of a simple file descriptor meaning it was
>> impossible to multiplex using poll() or select() on them, you had to have
>> a seperate thread to manage each connection. What a fucking mess designed
>> by idiots.
>
>There is no problem using socket select with Windows. Here is an 
>implementation of a server doing that:
>
>    http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de/ada/components.htm#17.1
>
>You can check the Windows implementation of to learn how it is done with 
>Windows sockets.

No idea what the pages of all that crap is.

Windows sockets are not integers , they can't be multiplexed with file
descriptors, pipes etc in a single call.

>> fork() copies the entire process space. No idea what you mean by "system
>> objects". Must be some windows thing.
>
>Objects managed by the OS.

Like what? Why does the OS need to manage "objects"?

>> Windows NT was a slow unreliable dog.
>
>It is not slow. Actually you can get same or better performance under 
>Windows as under Linux. The problem is the default settings of the 

I'm not talking about now, I was talking about when NT came out. Learn to
read.