You are being deliberately dense. If no existing JVM gives runnable objects their own stack, then it's impossible for a java developer to create thousands of threads (without creating their own JVM, which is totally unreasonable 99% of the time). It's a practical impossibility. Is that so much worse than a technical one?
Re:Rob Pike: Go at Google
by fauigerzigerk on Sunday October 28, 2012 @06:48AM
(#4708647)
I said it here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707344
12 hours ago in a direct reply to your question.
I am really sorry for my reaction and excuse myself for it.
I have missed that and got carried away in Internet discussion style.
Sorry about that, somehow I got it wrong and blindly carried on discussing nonsense without thinking any longer about it.
Re:Rob Pike: Go at Google
by fauigerzigerk on Sunday October 28, 2012 @01:09PM
(#4709383)
That's OK, it's been a perfectly civilised debate after all. You're making a fair point insisting on a distinction between implementations and the spec. My initial posts were very unclear in that regard.
<quote> That's not true at all. Each goroutine has its own variable sized stack whereas Runnable objects in Java don't have a stack of their own. They use the thread's stack. So as long as a Runnable uses its stack (that is the run() method hasn't finished), the thread cannot be used by other Runnables.
So, in Go you can have thousands active function invocations (i.e tens of thousands of stack frames on thousands of stacks) at the same time and they do not occupy thousands of threads. You can't do that in Java. </quote>