this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
670 points (94.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

31992 readers
139 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MantisWaffle@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The only way I have heard threads are expensive, in the context of handling many io requests, is stack usage. You can tell the os to give less memory (statically determined stack size) to the thread when it's spawned, so this is not a fundamental issue to threads.

Go ahead and spin up a web worker and transfer a bunch of data to it and tell us how long you had to wait.

Time to transfer data to one thread is related to io speed. Why would this have anything to do with concurrency model?

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well I just told you another one, one actually relevant to the conversation at hand, since it's the only one you can use with JavaScript in the context of a web browser.

[–] MantisWaffle@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You cant say async is the fundamentally better model because threading is purposely crippled in the browser.

The conversation at hand is not "how do io in browser". Its "async is not inherently better than threads"

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, because async is fundamentally a paradigm for how to express asynchronous programming, i.e. situations where you need to wait for something else to happen, threading is not an alternative to that, callbacks are.

[–] MantisWaffle@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

Threads are callbacks.