From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 674c3d8d for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:50:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 62432A1889; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:50:25 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53225A1836; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:50:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C6984A1836; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:50:16 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DFDCA181F for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:50:13 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id EE4B335E116; Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:50:12 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Arthur Krewat Message-ID: <20180626215012.GE8150@mcvoy.com> References: <1f8043fd-e8d6-a5e6-5849-022d1a41f5bf@kilonet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1f8043fd-e8d6-a5e6-5849-022d1a41f5bf@kilonet.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] PDP-11 legacy, C, and modern architectures X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:16:56PM -0400, Arthur Krewat wrote: > > > On 6/26/2018 3:01 PM, Ronald Natalie wrote: > >I???m not sure I buy his arguments. > I was going to say it was total and complete BS, at least based on the > quoted statement in the initial email. But I decided not to send it. ;) > > I wrote a POSIX thread based queuing system a few years back that could > handle thousands of threads on a dual processor SPARC-10 before it just > completely locked up Solaris (I think 9). It was targeted at larger systems, > and it could easily scale as far as I wanted it to. > > While you could argue that pthreads are not "C", the language was quite > happy doing what I asked of it. So I agree, had the same initial reaction. But I read the paper a second time and the point about Fortran, all these years later, still being a thing resonated. The hardware guys stand on their heads to give us coherent caches. > Sometimes, I wonder... Programmers are supposed to be smarter than the > language. Not the other way around. That's a great quote. But I do sort of grudgingly see the author's point of view, at least somewhat. --lm