The threads basically will consume almost-no resources other than a process-table entry somewhere in the guts of the operating system
Oh. Thank you for explaining that to me. Except you're wrong!
Threads are not processes, so therefore do not have "process-table entries".
On the other hand, threads have their own stacks; their own interpreter contexts; their own copies of the environment; their own copies of pre-existing global context; their own proxies for any shared data; their own ...
In other words, you aren't just slightly off, but absolutely diametrically wrong on all counts.
So why post? Why do you -- who evidently know little of the subject, and understand even less of the little you have some inkling of -- feel the need to demonstrate to me -- I think fair to say, one of the more knowledgeable monks with regard to threading -- just how useless your home-spun wisdom fairy stories on this subject, as with so many others, really are?
Are you hoping to help me? Or help the OP? Or to ingratiate yourself with me in particular or the monks in general?
What is the point of your posting this garbage?
Oh look, someone front paged this thread. I wonder if that could have influenced your need to "say something"?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| 