Hacker News Reader

Soo... Essentially, still threads, but no shared state between threads, and they talk through this message interface?

Threads which can’t share state are called processes.

Fair-ish point, if a bit cheeky. But threads can be still threads, i.e. in the same address space, but without actually having shared state between them. And then they're still threads, not processes.

You could also have stuff like message ques going between them, the cost of passing data around is small then, you don't have do leave user space to put stuff in the mq's. But can you still call it "not having shared state"? I'd say yes, even though you do share memory and you do have the mutually accessible que. But I can see why you could argue otherwise.

> Fair-ish point, if a bit cheeky. But threads can be still threads, i.e. in the same address space, but without actually having shared state between them. And then they're still threads, not processes.

If they don’t share state implicitly, then by all relevant features they are processes. That they share an address space is not really relevant except as an opportunity for optimisation. See BEAM.

Hell, older consumer OS used to not have memory isolation, even after multitasking was introduced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com