From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5978d69bfd72141dfdf2afb79ba4e7da@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  3 Mar 2009 19:54:10 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130903031633n19ce8800ma5eeee44886bed52@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: aeb0a0fa-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I should have qualified. I mean *massive* parallelization when applied
> to "average" use cases. I don't think it's totally unusable (I
> complain about synchronous I/O on my phone every day), but it's being
> pushed as a panacea, and that is what I think is wrong. Don Knuth
> holds this opinion, but I think he's mostly alone on that,
> unfortunately.

it's interesting that parallel wasn't cool when chips were getting
noticably faster rapidly.  perhaps the focus on parallelization
is a sign there aren't any other ideas.

- erik