Printable View
Early results are in and many are surprised! Think this statistic is wrong? Add your vote to the poll. You can also join the discussions with Intel this week on developing multithreaded applications.
You can cast your own vote on this poll at http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=495894
Note that this poll is still open, so the results might have changed. At the time of this posting, over 71 percent of respondents had been doing multithreaded development for more than a year!
More...
Statistics are weak imho - at the time of this posting there were less than 30 respondents.
I'd vote but honestly, I don't feel like signing up and registering for yet another site just to offer my 2 cents. :p
I've been multithreading for about two+ years now.
Same, if the poll was offered here on vbf then I'd vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenner
I've incorporated multithreading into quite a few apps since 2004. Using VS2003, 2005 and 2008.
I don't use VS2010 yet and probably wont for another year or two (waiting for sp1 to work out the remaining bugs).
I considered registering....but I spend too much time on THIS forum.
I've been actively multithreading for a few years now.
90% of the code I work on is written in PL/SQL.
The remaining 10% is VB6, shell scripting and some .NET technologies.
None of it requires to be multi-threaded, or maybe it does, but we don't care enough.
Off topic:
We are working on a plan to integrate registrations across all of our sites. I'd say that a year from now, the login you use to get onto VBForums should also get you onto Codeguru.....
Timeline is actually quicker than that, but creating a single sign on for a couple dozen forums, and nearly a hundreds sites isn't as easy as one would hope :)
Brad!
Thanks Brad.Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
Off topic: If you get banned on one of the forums, does it automatically mean, you're banned on all of them :eek: :D
Still off topic: It's little details that make something like a single-sign on get very complex very quickly :).Quote:
Originally Posted by abhijit
Great, there goes the rest of my free time.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
I find that an interesting number. As an unscientific poll, it's probably accurate. If there was a way to make it a bit more meaningful by capturing related demographics, and a broader base, it wouldn't surprise me to find that statistic flip.
It also depends on what the intent of "multi-threaded" is. Is a simple app that spins up a BGW to load data from a database multi-threaded? Or are we talking about something closer to parallelism?
I'm just asking.
-tg
Those are good points. I would guess that the people responding to that poll are themselves biased heavily towards multithreading because I would expect them to be biased towards experienced programmers working on significant projects, as opposed to students, casual hobbyists, and infrequent users. Second, I would expect a slight bias towards people who do use multithreading to be more likely to respond, thereby skewing the result towards YES!
My thoughts exactly, if I didnt use multi-threading or wasnt sure what it was etc then I would doubt I would respond to the poll. Having said that, I'm not responding anyway as I cant be bothered to go through the registration process :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
i voted yes and no at the same time using multithreading :afrog:
I'm glad for .NET 4.0, since it introduces Parallel FX which makes multithreading much easier.
Amen, personally, I do extremely little parallelism style multi-threading (i.e. multi-threading a loop) only because in areas where I have the advantage to set it up, it's a pain and usually not worth the tiny performance benefit I'd get. Parallel FX makes that decision moot since it makes it extremely easy to do.