Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!cme-durer!libes
From: libes@cme-durer.ARPA (Don Libes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Message-ID: <683@muffin.cme-durer.ARPA>
Date: 26 Oct 88 15:31:34 GMT
References: <592245952.ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU> <9772@bigtex.cactus.org> <10736@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: libes@cme.nbs.gov (Don Libes)
Organization: National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD
Lines: 18

In article <10736@reed.UUCP> tart@reed.UUCP (Stephanie Shelton) writes:
>In article <9772@bigtex.cactus.org> james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>>> From: "Maria J. Jones" <mj11+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>>> Rashid says Mach's unique features include the ability to execute
>>> multiple activities or "threads" within a single program.

>>I feel obligated to point out that Microsoft's OS/2 does this too.

>And then of course there's Concurrent C.  Unix has had the ability to do this
>for a while.  It's all a question of how you most effectively program it.

In conversation, Rashid pointed out that if you have a multiprocessor
architecture, MACH threads can really run in parallel (as opposed to
time-slicing on a single CPU).  None of UNIX, OS/2, threads support this.

Must be hell debugging.

Don Libes          libes@cme.nbs.gov      ...!uunet!cme-durer!libes