Xavier Leroy wrote:

> Again, I'd argue that a design that calls for thousands of threads is
> broken.  See the periodic and lively discussions on
> comp.programming.threads on this topic.

I have an application that _requires_ thousands of 
threads of control. It has nothing to do with the 'design'.
Of course, the threads spend most of the time doing nothing,
and the current implementation uses callbacks not hardware
threads. However, programming in this environment directly
is bad; the programmer wants to write threads.

I was thinking of using the bytecode interpreter threads to
implement this. Is this not feasible? [Hardware threads are
too slow, I need to create 500 threads per second, with
a life of about 5 mins, which means about 20000 active threads:
the overhead of 4K is per thread is small, only ~80Meg]

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net