Gary Willoughby: "Why Go's design is a disservice to intelligent programmers"

[Sönke Ludwig via Digitalmars-d-announce]

Am 27.03.2015 um 11:11 schrieb Walter Bright:
> On 3/27/2015 2:57 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> Aren't "green threads" now given the label fibres?
>
> My understanding of fibers is they are all in one thread. Go's green
> threads can be in multiple threads, the same thread, and even moved from
> one thread to another.
>
>> And I think Vibe.d
>> has an implementation for these – but I do not know for certain.
>
> I don't know, either.

It has, that is more or less the original selling point. It also keeps 
an internal thread pool where each thread has a dynamic set of reusable 
fibers to execute tasks. Each fiber is bound to a certain thread, 
though, and they have to, because otherwise things like thread local 
storage or other thread specific code (e.g. the classic OpenGL model, 
certain COM modes etc.) would break.

Apart from these concerns, It's also not clear to me that moving tasks 
between threads is necessarily an improvement. There are certainly cases 
where that leads to a better distribution across the cores, but in most 
scenarios the number of concurrent tasks should be high enough to keep 
all cores busy anyhow. There are also additional costs for moving fibers 
(synchronization, cache misses).