Re: We have a new standard!

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 11:57:45 -0500
Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote:

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:
 

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 08:50:16 -0500
Sam <sam@email-scan.com> gabbled: 

But C++20 jumped the shark, when the standardization process was
hijacked by Microsoft in order to cram coroutines into the
language, which noone wanted, cared, or asked for, simply because
the standard threading model in Windows blows chunks, performance
wise, and Microsoft desperately needed a multithreading model that
did not suck. 

>
I looked at co-routines and wondered wtf the author(s) was smoking.
How its supposed to be simpler than simply using a local state
machine beats the fsckout of me. 

 
Everything will make sense to you when you look at the co-routines 
proposal, and note its authorship:
 
https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4402.pdf
 
Visual C++ does not have an impressive track record of zippy
adoptions of new C++ language feature. Most of the time it gets
beaten to the punch by gcc. Weirdly, it was the first out of the gate
with co-routines.
 
As I said: std::thread blows chunks on Windows. This was Microsoft's 
solution.
>

That makes no sense.
If Microsoft was so concerned about lack of competitiveness of
std::thread under Windows then it would campaign for addition to the
standard of non-joinable threads (a.k.a. thread pools, a.k.a. work
items) rather than of coroutines. May be, also for addition of IO
completion ports, although those are much harder to standardize in
OS-independent manner.
The third possibility would be addition of stackful co-routines (a.k.a.
fibers, a.k.a. cooperatively scheduled threads).
Stackless coroutines of C++ serve non-trivially different purposes than
all things mentioned above and unlikely to replace threads except in
*very* unusual circumstances.