[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11714] Re: Suggestion for threading model

From: "Heller" <heller@...>
Date: 2001-02-27 21:10:03 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11714
I was just wondering, does Ruby have to use it's own threading
implementation even on operating systems that have native threads? Is there
an advantage to either scenario?

-Chris

"Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote in message
news:001901c09635$413fb0a0$01f9fea9@austin.rr.com...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: anthony cagle <acagle@subimo.com>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:07 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:10779] Re: Suggestion for threading model
>
>
> > If you're referring to the CYC project, it spun out as a company, Cycorp
> > which appears to still be operational (www.cyc.com).
> >
>
> Thanks very much for that reference, Anthony...
> that does indeed seem to be what I was
> remembering...
>
> Hal
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 4:24 PM
> > To: ruby-talk ML
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:10711] Re: Suggestion for threading model
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen White <spwhite@chariot.net.au>
> > To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:12 AM
> > Subject: [ruby-talk:10708] Suggestion for threading model
> >
> >
> > [huge interesting snip]
> >
> > Here's my (mostly useless) opinion.
> >
> > In terms of modeling the universe, this might be a very
> > interesting, useful approach. After all, every object in
> > the real world has its own "world line" and there is no
> > inherent "sequence" in accessing them.
> >
> > As long as we're dreaming, I'd assign a separate
> > processor to each object instance. And the instances
> > wouldn't share any code among them.
> >
> > The universe implements True Concurrency in possibly the
> > strictest sense of the word... probably without even a
> > quantized timeslice... and there is no evidence that God
> > does timeslicing anyway... :)
> >
> > So in a sense I like this idea (more long term than short).
> >
> > However, in terms of practicality and ease of implementation,
> > I think there might be huge problems.
> >
> > To exaggerate a notch or three, it's rather like the idea of
> > building a giant expert system with millions of rules, giving it
> > a natural language interface, and slowly dumping all of human
> > knowledge into it. (Things like this have been proposed
> > seriously.)
> >
> > To all who propose these things, I say, "Fine... go do it."
> >
> > I recall an interesting 2,000,000-rule expert system proposed
> > right here in Austin at MCC... but I haven't heard from it in
> > so many years, I'd bet a nickel it's defunct.
> >
> > Hal Fulton
> >
> >
>


In This Thread

Prev Next