I literally just explained this to you in a prior comment. Let’s say you have a web server that’s accepting connections. You have one thread that grabs the connection and spawns a thread from a pool of workers threads to handle it. Then it goes back to listening for connections. This is how things work on platforms like the JVM. The runtime manages the execution of the threads. This is similar to the way the OS handles scheduling processes. When you’d doing async by hand you’re basically handrolling your own scheduler each time.
What stops you from using worker threads is lack of ergonomics. Just the fact that each worker has to live in a separate file creates friction. In a sane language you can just do new Thread().start() and you’re done. In Js it’s a Rube Goldberg machine as always. When you look at at actual code people write in Js, you see async code everywhere. So, maybe you can answer why you think that is, and why people aren’t using worker threads to write sync style code they’d write in other languages.
I’ve directly addressed your points, and I get the impression that you’re the one who’s ignoring my points here. The reality is that blocking operations in js are handled using async calls, and reasoning about async code is inherently more difficult than sync code. Platforms that provide proper threading allow developers to write sync style code and handle blocking by using threads that are managed by the runtime. While you have workers in Js, it’s pretty clear that they’re not meant to be used in the same way, nor do people use them this way in practice.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
I literally just explained this to you in a prior comment. Let’s say you have a web server that’s accepting connections. You have one thread that grabs the connection and spawns a thread from a pool of workers threads to handle it. Then it goes back to listening for connections. This is how things work on platforms like the JVM. The runtime manages the execution of the threads. This is similar to the way the OS handles scheduling processes. When you’d doing async by hand you’re basically handrolling your own scheduler each time.
What stops you from using worker threads is lack of ergonomics. Just the fact that each worker has to live in a separate file creates friction. In a sane language you can just do
new Thread().start()and you’re done. In Js it’s a Rube Goldberg machine as always. When you look at at actual code people write in Js, you see async code everywhere. So, maybe you can answer why you think that is, and why people aren’t using worker threads to write sync style code they’d write in other languages.You seem to misunderstand my points.
And I don’t think you want to.
I’ve directly addressed your points, and I get the impression that you’re the one who’s ignoring my points here. The reality is that blocking operations in js are handled using async calls, and reasoning about async code is inherently more difficult than sync code. Platforms that provide proper threading allow developers to write sync style code and handle blocking by using threads that are managed by the runtime. While you have workers in Js, it’s pretty clear that they’re not meant to be used in the same way, nor do people use them this way in practice.