Received: by 10.52.16.113 with SMTP id f17mr1490522vdd.3.1347881150715;
        Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: nodejs@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.220.147.138 with SMTP id l10ls4533626vcv.7.gmail; Mon, 17 Sep
 2012 04:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.91.47 with SMTP id cb15mr496649vdb.11.1347881144076;
        Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 04:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bruno Jouhier <bjouh...@gmail.com>
To: nodejs@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <0bdba28d-722b-48e5-8801-d296522b17ed@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <babd5cf2-b806-43f9-b59d-f0a383093391@googlegroups.com>
References: <3BDDA090-823C-4386-A083-6DAEA39A4593@jorgechamorro.com>
 <385F8054-DAF2-4FC1-B584-0C6FC1A147C3@3rd-eden.com>
 <20120915171824.GF7788@eldergods.com>
 <33F4E3BD-99F9-471D-A3CA-D3479D2A3B23@gmail.com>
 <A4C21EF1-89E6-47FF-A34B-DE332DC5489A@radicaldesigns.org>
 <CACrj35EuPCsWr2AmzVSj4Chb+Q1R6neq3+zkmmscqL8zus7C7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120916215132.GI7788@eldergods.com>
 <50e58ea4-95c8-4be5-824f-4cf5caf5e8f7@googlegroups.com>
 <babd5cf2-b806-43f9-b59d-f0a383093391@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Threading, and Dogmatisms.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1851_22995854.1347881143772"

------=_Part_1851_22995854.1347881143772
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1852_24314570.1347881143776"

------=_Part_1852_24314570.1347881143776
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


So it is perfectly fine if someone writes:

"Threads-a-go-go is a pretty daft silly thing. 
It's certainly not the safe sane shared-nothing threading that keeps Node & 
JS safe. That 
responsible multi-threading work was attempted in the 'isolates' branch of 
Node.js"

Jorge should just swallow the FUD, bend over and apologize for having 
proposed such a "daft silly thing" to the community! 

BTW, the 'isolates' branch failed, probably because it was trying to do too 
much (put a complete node into every isolate). TAGG solves a much narrower 
problem: delegating CPU intensive operations to threads, and it does it in 
a safe and efficient way.

The problem is that we cannot even discuss anything related to threads in a 
rational way. There may be perfectly valid use cases for threads in node (I 
think that CPU intensive computations are one - you can do them in threads 
with C++, why not in JS?), and there are perfectly safe and clean ways to 
add threads to node (and I think that TAGG is one - the "eval" situation 
can be improved with modules). But how can we discuss this without everyone 
jumping to the ceiling?

Bruno

------=_Part_1852_24314570.1347881143776
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<br>So it is perfectly fine if someone writes:<br><br>"Threads-a-go-go is a pretty daft silly thing.
<br>It's certainly not the safe sane shared-nothing threading that keeps Node &amp; JS safe. That
<br>responsible multi-threading work was attempted in the 'isolates' branch of Node.js"<br><br>Jorge should just swallow the FUD, bend over and apologize for having proposed such a "daft silly thing" to the community! <br><br>BTW, the 'isolates' branch failed, probably because it was trying to do too much (put a complete node into every isolate). TAGG solves a much narrower problem: delegating CPU intensive operations to threads, and it does it in a safe and efficient way.<br><br>The problem is that we cannot even discuss anything related to threads in a rational way. There may be perfectly valid use cases for threads in node (I think that CPU intensive computations are one - you can do them in threads with C++, why not in JS?), and there are perfectly safe and clean ways to add threads to node (and I think that TAGG is one - the "eval" situation can be improved with modules). But how can we discuss this without everyone jumping to the ceiling?<br><br>Bruno<br>
------=_Part_1852_24314570.1347881143776--

------=_Part_1851_22995854.1347881143772--