On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 12:15:14AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> tomas wrote:
> 
> >> maybe show us some simplest implementation "hello world" [...]
> >
> > (defun hello-world ()
> >   (message "Hello, World"))
> >
> > Happy now?
> 
> No, since that should just execute sequentially and monopolize
> the Emacs process if I am correct?

[...]

Your request is far too unspecific as to allow a
meaningful answer. What do you mean by a "thread"?
What do you expect "parallel" to do"? How do your
programs look like? Do you want multiprocessing with
explicit continuation passing or with pseudo- or
real parallelism with locking around commonly shared
resources? Or do rather message passing without
any shared resources?

"Threads" is not just some kind of magical dust
you sprinkle over your program to make it execute
in parallel, alas.

For one extreme of the spectrum, making a program
responsive while waiting for data to trickle in
via several network sockets doesn't need any
threads (arguably, threads can make it worse, as
web server folks have proven).

On the other extreme, you might want to distribute
a big parallelizable work to your 40 CPU cores
(I only have 2, alas). Most of the time,you'd be
better of with many processes.

Life takes place somewhere in between that (unless
you are either working with big clusters, or with
GPUs).

My take is that threads are a bit overrated.
But I may be wrong.

Cheers
-- 
t