Chet Murthy writes:
> I'm not saying that threads are bad.  Rather, what I'm saying is,
> there is little need, in a language like CAML, for _user-level_
> threads.  Kernel threads, you need, for talking to DB2 or Oracle.
> Period.  But user-level threads, implemented in the language, don't
> give you much value.  Much better to do some sort of explicit (perhaps
> semi-automated) CPS-conversion, and use an event-dispatcher.
> 
> Amongst other things, at least, you'll never have to worry about being
> time-sliced where you didn't expect it.


Hmmm.  Well, try telling the Erlang folks that super-lightweight
user-level processes aren't useful.  Or the Gambit Scheme folks: their
next release has lightweight threads built on call/cc.  (Note: these
two things may be related.) 

http://x58.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=622079764&CONTEXT=976821773.388825093&hitnum=0
http://www.ericsson.se/cslab/projects/etos.shtml
-- 
T. Kurt Bond, tkb@tkb.mpl.com