basic python threading question
David Bolen
db3l at fitlinxx.com
Fri Sep 29 18:49:24 EDT 2000
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Sep 29 18:49:24 EDT 2000
- Previous message (by thread): basic python threading question
- Next message (by thread): basic python threading question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Donn Cave <donn at u.washington.edu> writes: > Threading is best avoided, period. I mean, if you can do > approximately the same thing without threads, then you would have to > be insane to use threads. (...) The use of threads adds a dimension > to the complexity of the program, that's all. (...) I think that's too general a statement, dependent on task. A multi-threaded implementation can often be clearer than alternative implementations - particularly when they are independent activities with little data overlap with other threads - because the operation itself stands alone and isn't cluttered with any baggage to manage multiple activities. Like anything else it can be mis-applied, but it's a valuable design method for some applications. And in most cases handling the same task that a threaded implementation achieves via another mechanism is going to have it's own trade-off in terms of complexity dimension. It would be the same sort of complexity as the threaded design, but it will have it's own complexity nonetheless. -- -- David -- /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l at fitlinxx.com / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
- Previous message (by thread): basic python threading question
- Next message (by thread): basic python threading question
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list