From: Charles O Nutter Date: 2006-07-29T09:59:12+09:00 Subject: Re: ruby threads? the point? ------=_Part_539_5361373.1154134749600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I hate to make a plug here, but threads under JRuby are native and a single one blocking on IO will not prevent others from running. It's still quite a bit slower than C Ruby, but for many applications it's definitely fast enough. Ruby 2.0 is supposed to have native threads too, but I know that 18+ months is a long time to wait. On 7/28/06, Eric Armstrong wrote: > > Sam Smoot wrote: > > > > My experience has been that IO is blocking in Ruby/Windows. Just try > > creating a background thread to insert into an MSSQL server through > > WIN32OLE+ADO. It's an exercise in futility. :-) > > > Ah. That explains why the two counter threads > worked. There was no I/O going on. But outside > of computational supercomputers, there is zero > point in having threads if they don't let you > keep doing things while waiting for I/O. > > > ...under Windows it's very painful and really limits the types > > of applications you can build with Ruby... > > > I'm forced to agree. My little application is dead in the > water. Windows users would have been a major market for it. > It would have helped drive ruby installs, which would have > helped to drive awareness. Similarly with game programs, > music programs, and a wide variety of other interesting > applications. > > This limitation is a severe shot in the foot with respect > to platform independence. > > > > -- Contribute to RubySpec! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec Charles Oliver Nutter @ headius.blogspot.com Ruby User @ ruby.mn JRuby Developer @ www.jruby.org Application Architect @ www.ventera.com ------=_Part_539_5361373.1154134749600--