threading

[Roy Smith]

In article <mailman.8974.1396874103.18130.python-list at python.org>,
 Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:26 PM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
> > Whether something works well on Windows is really not something I worry
> > about a lot.
> 
> It's a concern for some of us.

You have my sympathy.

> it's a fully-supported platform for a lot of Python software, so in a 
> generic discussion, I'd say it's important to note it.

In all things technology related, there is an evolutionary path.  It 
goes something like this:

* bleeding edge
* avant-garde
* what the kewl kids are using
* modern
* mainstream
* traditional
* corporate standard
* legacy
* extended support
* prehistoric

I figure Windows (at least on the desktop) is legacy at this point.  Or, 
in the case of XP (The Release That Wouldn't Die), extended support.  I 
acknowledge it exists, and is still commercially important, and even has 
certain advantages, in the same way that I acknowledge the continued 
existence of incandescent light bulbs, POTS, C++, and film photography.

I put threading in the same category.  There are two major reasons for 
using threading: as an architectural pattern for doing non-blocking I/O, 
and to allow a program to take advantage of multiple processors in a 
single machine.  Fortunately, we have figured out better ways to do both 
of those.  The idea that we should continue to use threading just 
because Windows makes process creation hideously expensive compared to 
thread creation doesn't impress me as an argument in favor of threading.  
It impresses me as an argument in favor of ditching Windows.

When I started using Python (1.4), it was somewhere around avant-garde.  
Now, I figure it's mainstream, which probably means it's time for me to 
move on to something else soon :-)