Sean Kelly wrote:
> Manfred Nowak wrote:
> 
>> The well known shootout shows a negative mark for concurrency for D

<snip>

>                 I suspect the functional languages perform
> so well because they do user-level concurrency rather than
> kernel-level concurrency 

<snip>

I think we should have both in D.

I don't think it's too hard to imagine a situation where one would want to use a few real OS threads, and _within_ some of them a bunch of simple cooperating light weight threads. ("Fibers, if you like.")

Equally, preemtive threading is overkill for a lot of other things.

Georg Wrede wrote:

>> I suspect the functional languages perform
>> so well because they do user-level concurrency rather than
>> kernel-level concurrency
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think we should have both in D.
> 
> I don't think it's too hard to imagine a situation where one would want to use a few real OS threads, and _within_ some of them a bunch of simple cooperating light weight threads. ("Fibers, if you like.")

I would like to see it too. I've to write my own "tasks" for TCP server I'm working on. Real threads are just to heavy to be massive. And things like this are often used IMO, so having them in standard lib would be great.