Asynchronicity in D

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Sean Kelly (sean at invisibleduck.org)'s article
> 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.

...or use such huge timeslices that the illusion of simultaneous execution breaks
down.