Re[2]: [Am-info] O/S 2 support - slightly off topic (my apologies)

[Eric M. Hopper]

On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 15:36, Erick Andrews wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 22:09:18 +0000, John Poltorak wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 03:35:08PM -0600, Eric M. Hopper wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> 
> >> No, I mean cooperative multithreading.  As I said, almost nobody thinks
> >> of cooperative multithreading as being that.  
> >
> >Well the concept is lost on me. I have no idea what it means at all.
> 
> Actually, I've never heard the term before either, but maybe it's common
> in some circles.  I think I understand the meaning, though I'd prefer 
> terms associated with releasing/blocking of mutex semaphores and the like.

The term 'cooperative multithreading' is one I semi-made up.  It
describes a certain way of handling CPU scheduling in a multithreading
environment.  A computer scientist might call it 'coroutines'.  The
point of cooperative multithreading is doing away with mutexes because a
thread will never involuntarily lose control of the CPU (be put in
suspended animation).  Mutexes exist to make sure that if a thread
involuntarily loses control of the CPU, another thread won't try to
alter the memory (piece of paper) its working with.

There are marketing faces put on computer science terms.  I was talking
to my aunt today and I realized this.  The marketing faces do not
completely accurately reflect the reality of what the terms mean.

*sigh*,
-- 
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed.  -- Alexander Hamilton
-- Eric Hopper (hopper@omnifarious.org 
http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --