4 ms·
People shouldn't make claims like that honestly. It makes be discount the language almost immediately because I know I can't really trust what's written about i
by btmorex 16y ago
People shouldn't make claims like that honestly. It makes be discount the language almost immediately because I know I can't really trust what's written about it on its site.
Furthermore, there's tons and tons of parallel C code. Probably more than any other language. Almost any decent C library is reentrant. Many of major C projects (mostly thinking of server software and operating system kernels) are threaded.
- varjag 16y agoHell, many operating system's thread schedulers are written in C..
- djcapelis 16y agoIronically the task of scheduling threads isn't one that is particularly parallel, but I think the point stands.
- javert 16y agoActually, it's entirely parallel, unless you only have one core. In a typical OS (like Linux), the scheduler runs on each core and selects which task to run next on that core.
- foljs 16y agoPeople should also understand generalization, though. That there's "tons and tons of parallel C code" doesn't matter. Parallelization is built-in into this language. It is not built-in, as a first class language feature, in C. A lot of C projects, such as servers, are indeed threaded, but threads are also so last century. Different paradigms (like in Erlang) are better to parallelize, easier to write, more performant, and much much less confusing to debug than threads. Heck, even no-side-effects functional language programming is better to parallelize than C with threads.