4 ms·
It’s probably very painful to try to convert a piece of async software to use a threaded model (though I’m just guessing, having never had to attempt this), so
by dodobirdlord 5y ago
It’s probably very painful to try to convert a piece of async software to use a threaded model (though I’m just guessing, having never had to attempt this), so I’d say it’s more a matter of thinking up front about whether you need to control threads directly. But to your main point, I agree. I suspect the vast majority of software has no need for thread-model parallelism, and languages have only historically presented that parallelism model because it’s the model that the OS exposes to userland, even though the OS scheduler is async-style scheduling the machine threads themselves!
- Nullabillity 5y agoYou might not even need to do that, most async runtimes support some kind of middle ground where you take explicit control over which tasks are scheduled to which threads.