Re: Quote from comp.object

Marshall wrote:

> On Mar 5, 8:42 am, "DBMS_Plumber" <paul_geoffrey_br..._at_yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>

>>On Mar 2, 3:30 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If we had true physical independence, even the process context switches
>>>could mostly go away.
>>
>>Yeah.
>>
>>And we'd all have ponies too.
>>
>>There's a computer somewhere underneath it all, Bob. Ultimately you
>>can't ignore that.

What a moron this dbms dumber guy is. One can have a computer without unecessary process context switches. Duh!

> Oh my goodness: a computer! Well that changes everything.
>
> Funny, I was going to post last week about approaches, including
> well-established ones, for avoiding the entire issue of process
> switching.
> Erlang for example is a programming language whose computational
> model can support hundreds of thousands of simultaneous processes,
> yet has very high reliability and uptime.

Hmmmm.... yet another language I have to look into. Sigh. Received on Tue Mar 06 2007 - 15:07:25 CET