C is the reason why Linux doesn't have concurrency.
Prove me wrong
C is the reason why Linux doesn't have concurrency
Tyler Stewart
Other urls found in this thread:
blog.codef00.com
twitter.com
Juan Powell
I believe you.
At the same time, I don't care. Linux is shit.
John Robinson
Linux is shit because C is shit
Ryan Morales
Windows is superior because it has coroutines.
Lucas Gomez
Partially, but in reality its because theres a few hunder distros instead of one or two. Gnu/ linux and gnu/ linux propietary should be the only commercial distros. Focus on maintaining basically one version, then make that version flexible as fuck. Of course some extra distros need to exsist for embedded systems, clusters, etc but if you can get it so the one distro is tailorable to shit and high end systems then of course it will be better and have more market share
Carter Miller
>Linux doesn't have concurrency
beg pard
Austin Torres
tell me more
Oliver Bailey
Theres a c library for threading.
Liam Sanders
Oh that accidental add-on
sasuga, user you really made my hopes high
Jason Thomas
linux has concurrency
Jacob Allen
Troll harder next time.
Benjamin Reed
Linux doesn't have actual threads
Jayden Torres
a futex is like a mutex with a big, uncut, meaty dick
Logan Rivera
Elaborate.
Hunter Mitchell
yeah, that's why so many libraries were written in C to do concurrency user, because C is just a huge bottleneck to concurrency xd
Jordan Morgan
I wish Linux was Plan 9.
Jaxson Sanders
threads are processes in linux
Alexander Phillips
XD
Matthew Peterson
(You)
Nathan Perez
It's rather that process are threads.
The distinction is funny in the linux world.
Maybe you should first properly define thread/process and then we can talk about whether linux has one or the other.
Hunter Torres
It actually is, since the compiler can barely do any aliasing detection so it can't decide to emmit parallel code on its own.
So C required some manual interaction to produce parallel code, which most other language (implementations) also require, because there's upper bounds to its usefulness.
Isaac Gutierrez
I think you are misunderstanding something. The clone() call, that underlies forking and posix threads has a flags for setting your own private memory space or you sharing the parent one and just having another context of execution. If you think about it, process and threads are just incarnations of the same concept of context of execution. Linux in this case does the right thing and unified both of them in implementation.
So threads are not processes, they are context of execution with specific flags to the clone call. Process are also context of execution but with other specific flags for the clone call.
Jacob Collins
C is the reason why mom had to cancel all my appointments to make time for me to fix xorg.conf.
Landon Johnson
wtf the other day someone told me everything in linux is a file!!!! wtf i hate linux now
John White
someone lied to you because you're a gullible animu mentally ill kid
Isaiah Harris
WTF???????? processes are THREADS???????
Isaiah Martin
>process are threads
false
Kayden Thompson
posix isnt linux
Cameron Young
...
Christopher Fisher
You still failed to properly define anything.
And even if you find something, small reminder that processes are also kthreads.
Luis Bennett
Linux does have concurrency, that's why you can run processes concurrently.
"herp derp nuh uh because muh special definition of concurrency" --retard.
Dylan Butler
Linux supports massive concurrency.
That said, in the user space, if you want concurrency, you're probably actually going with the JVM (Java, Scala, ...).
Ian Perry
what do you guys mean
Jeremiah King
bump for linux is shit