Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:05:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <vlm47g$2r4lh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vlkoc8$2fte8$6@dont-email.me> <BcmfP.289889$aTp4.50420@fx09.iad> <677e2eb8$0$375$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <vllql7$sn6$2@reader2.panix.com> <677e8523$0$28061$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:05:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f12364ffe02516948a1481f918c4b22f";
	logging-data="2986673"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+El1mVXt8X/Df9k595NFmB"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:li2suqiCHvJNugekSHyncNQhp10=
Bytes: 1986

On 08 Jan 2025 14:01:07 GMT
Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wibbled:
>Dan Cross, dans le message <vllql7$sn6$2@reader2.panix.com>, a écrit :
>> I think it's important to define what you mean when you write,
>> "thread condition."  What, exactly, is that?  Perhaps you mean
>> a condition variable?
>
>Yes, of course that is what “thread condition” means in the context of a
>discussion about POSIX threads.

No, they're called condition variables, not thread conditions which implies
something rather different. Surely an experienced genius like you would know 
that.

>POSIX threads do not make I/O concurrency easier, they are not made for
>that, they are for performance.

Not really. They're made for multitasking in situations where multiplexing
would be too complicated or impossible and multiprocess would be overkill or
too resource intensive. On a single core CPU using threads could actually slow 
a program down compared to using a single thread.