From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3f60acc31578c72b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: question about tasks, multithreading and multi-cpu machines
Date: 25 Mar 2006 16:28:26 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccveu21af9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <dv6qsd$lg0$00$1@news.t-online.com>
 <biuje3-olg.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com> <dvb69k$88t$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1143322107 20909 192.74.137.71 (25 Mar 2006 21:28:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:28:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3609
Date: 2006-03-25T16:28:26-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com> writes:

> Jeffrey Creem wrote:
> 
> > Actually, threads is misleading since threads are just tasks minus
> > rendevous. It all just depends on your perspective. Since Ada had
> > tasking before (most) unix had threads I think Unix got the name wrong
> > :)
> 
> In my humble opinion, Ada got it wrong in the first place.

I tend to agree that "thread" is a better term than "task".
But I think you get it wrong when you say "wrong".  ;-)
It's wrong to call names-for-things "wrong" -- they are just
conventions.  See Lewis Carrol.

> The tasks in Ada do not match any of the above. Other languages (for
> example Java) also got it wrong, by treating threads as objects or even
> by allowing a programmer to "subclass" or "specialize" a thread
> class. None of the languages that I'm aware of allows me to treat tasks
> and threads as they really are, which means that everybody got it wrong
> in one way or another. :)

I don't understand why "threads as objects" seems wrong to you.

> > So, the only thing I am trying to say here is that people seem to
> > assume that task, thread and process have some formal definition that
> > is all powerful. This is not true.
> 
> Right.

Right.  Task, thread, and process have all been used interchangeably in
the past.  These days, "process" seems to imply a separate memory
context, though.

- Bob