Asynchronicity in D

[Sean Kelly]

On Apr 1, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:

> On 01/04/11 01.07, dsimcha wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Again forgive my naiveness, as most of my experience with concurrency is
>> concurrency to implement parallelism, not concurrency for its own sake.  Shouldn't
>> 32,000 threads be more than enough for anything?  I can't imagine what kinds of
>> programs would really need this level of concurrency, or how bad performance on
>> any specific thread would be when you have this many.  Right now in my Task
>> Manager the program with the most threads is explorer.exe, with 28.
> 
> There doesn't have to be a thread for each socket. Actually many servers have very few threads with many sockets each. 32000 sockets is not unimaginable for certain server loads e.g. websockets or game servers. But I know it is not that common.

Hopefully not at all common.  With that level of concurrency the process will spend more time context switching than executing code.