jacob said:
Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit : ....
That will be a catastrophe.
There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi-
threaded code in C:
(1) POSIX pthreads
(2) Windows threads
The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a
standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support
is completely unconnected with software construction realities.
There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work
with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the
key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative
approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather
refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's
some hope for you yet!
If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit
for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities
is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX
environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather
than being written separately for each environment. This is a
relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to
convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and
advantage.
I certainly hope that someone will have proven that the new features
are implementable, by implementing them, before the final vote is made
on the decision to mandate them. Do you have any rational reason to
think that they won't be?
The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because
they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to
implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them.
They weren't widely supported ... because they were easy to
implement?! Do you think they would have been more widely adopted if
they had been harder to implement?
....
I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in
this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my
memory serves
The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set
of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately.
However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as
recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with
Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a
serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people,
including yourself.
It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is
I have no desire to support them any farther than I actually am in
agreement with them. As I'm frequently in disagreement with them, and
have frequently expressed such disagreement, I'm at a loss as to how
you could conclude otherwise.
....
The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the
documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library.
Well, in that case it should be pretty easy to confirm whether the
proposal can be implemented; if nothing else, Plaugher can make the
needed modifications to his own library, and determine whether they
work. Since his library is fairly popular, that also suggests that
there's a reasonable amount of existing experience with how to use a
library that's not too different from the final proposal.
