Perl threads and libwww wierdness
sthoenna at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 08:50:45 GMT 2011
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Toby Wintermute <tjc at wintrmute.net> wrote:
> 2011/12/16 Peter Vereshagin <peter at vereshagin.org>:
>> 2011/12/16 12:38:16 +1100 Toby Wintermute <tjc at wintrmute.net> => To London.pm Perl M[ou]ngers :
>> TW> > (i)Threaded perl5 ( 'use threads' ) doesn't seem to be recommended for
>> TW> > production environments.
>> TW> I know it certainly wasn't recommended back in the days of 5.6 or 5.8,
>> TW> but I thought things had improved since then..
>> They did. Perl6 was released and it seems to have threads those can be recommended.
>> Perl5 have fork() that 'just works' and seems to be enough.
> So, you're saying that threads under perl5 is forever going to be
> considered broken and not worth touching then? :(
> Why do all the main distros ship a threading-enabled Perl? I note that
> Padre won't build without threads enabled either.
Because threads are cool and all the cool languages have them?
My take is that because perl's ithreads are so expensive (in time
and memory both to start them up and to share data), you are almost
always better off designing your code to work with forks instead.
I just don't see the compelling use case for threads, unless you are
stuck in the threading mindset.
More information about the london.pm