Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 9th Sep 2007 18:08 UTC, submitted by koki
Thread beginning with comment 270021
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-09
But I sincerely think that C++ is a very bad choice as a language to write multithreaded applications.
Or whatever non HLL. We got it. Thanks.
Now, whatever the language, designing applications that scale well both on responsivness and computing raw power needs developers used to threading design patterns.
No language will know better than you what and where in your application it matter more to use parallelism and where it make no sense at all and, worst case, could even be counterproductive.
Parallelism doesn't oppose procedural language but sequential programming. Two different things. Some language can have built-in parallelism support, sure. And? Doesn't make any threading design pattern article automatically useless.
Edited 2007-09-10 21:02