Re: [dev] Re: Simple port scanner again (was: GSoC 2010)

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Anselm R Garbe <anselm_AT_garbe.us> wrote:
> On 8 March 2010 00:05, anonymous <aim0shei_AT_lavabit.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 11:48:38PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
>>> No, there is a fairly clear consensus about the meaning of 'process',
>>> there is no such consensus regarding 'threads', so being explicit
>>> saying 'pthreads', or 'CSP threads' (as in 'libthread'), or
>>> 'goroutines' is the best.
>>
>> Difference between pthreads and libthread is the way threads communicate
>> (locks/mutexes vs channels) but 'thread' means the same. Both in pthreads
>> and in libthread threads are like processes that share the same address
>> space (everything except registers and stack).
>
> Can we please stop this useless discussion. We all know Uriel's
> opinion about pthreads and many of us agree that the pthread API
> sucks. Most of us will agree that not using the term "thread" is good
> when CSP-like concurrency is implicated. This doesn't change the fact
> however, that the conventional meaning of "thread" is well understood
> and that there is no real controversy in programming  (pthreads,
> windows threads, Java threads, etc are all the same concept) about it,
> apart from Uriel's favor for CSP.

I will only add that even when one says "Java Threads" it is very
ambiguous as there are many kinds of Java threads (and this is one of
the areas where Java fails miserably at portability specially since
they decided to replace 'green' threads with 'native' threads).

If you are talking about 'processes that share the same address space'
is much better to be explicit and say that, than to use the vague and
confusing word 'thread' (unless the context is damned clear).

uriel

> Thanks,
> Anselm
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 09 2010 - 02:14:44 UTC