From: Tony Arcieri Date: 2012-08-29T05:07:04+09:00 Subject: Re: force child threads run paralelly? --f46d043bded44c21a204c858fcda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Peter Zotov wrote: > Ruby 1.8 had green threads, which did work on threadless platforms, but > having green > threads doesn't require one to abandon multicore support. For example, > Erlang > has both. A minor nit: depending on who you ask, the phrase "green threads" is the proper opposite of "native threads". Systems that utilize native threads for scheduling (e.g. the Erlang SMP scheduler) are probably not properly described as "green threaded". Prior to the SMP scheduler, Erlang could be described as green threaded. Erlang's creators prefer the phrase "process" for its concurrency primitive, although it can generally be described as being "microthreaded" -- Tony Arcieri --f46d043bded44c21a204c858fcda Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Peter Zotov <whitequark@whitequark.org> wrote:
Ruby 1.8=A0had green threads, which did work on threadless platforms, but h= aving green
threads doesn't require one to abandon multicore support. For example, = Erlang
has both.

A minor nit: depending on who yo= u ask, the phrase "green threads" is the proper opposite of "= ;native threads". Systems that utilize native threads for scheduling (= e.g. the Erlang SMP scheduler) are probably not properly described as "= ;green threaded". Prior to the SMP scheduler, Erlang could be describe= d as green threaded.

Erlang's creators prefer the phrase "process" = for its concurrency primitive, although it can generally be described as be= ing "microthreaded"

--
Tony A= rcieri

--f46d043bded44c21a204c858fcda--