Apparently it is a more efficient way of scheduling threads on multi-core systems
1) Uh, since when did the nature of a language dictate how fast/slow an IDE implementation is?
Since when it's implemented in the language in question (Eclipse, NetBeans,...)
2) Why, dear god, would a slow IDE be evidence that a language sucks?
Only if the IDE was designed to "fix" bad language design or it was implemented in the same language.
3) What language are you using that is "too convoluted" to use outside of an IDE? Because I've used quite a few, and I've yet to come across *any* language that "requires" an IDE.
Java? OK, it doesn't 'require' as in 'it needs', but it 'require' as in 'when I want to code in reasonable time span I need an IDE'
Don't get me wrong, I like Java and I like Eclipse, I just think there is a big room for improvement. On the other hand, nowadays there is simply to many libraries out there to remember the API for every single class (or even the more commonly used methods) and going back and forth between code and some library documentation isn't an 'optimal solution', so whether we like it or not, we rely on IDE's more and more.
It still amazes me that people tend to confuse the map with the territory (simulacra anyone?) "Life" is a meaningless concept on it's own, the meaning is made by context, if your context is based on romantic/Christian base it shifts towards the soul nonsense, but if your context is purely scientific - it depends only on definitions and facts.
IMHO life is gens, it's DNA in motion, it's the amino-acids that forms DNA and it's the particles that forms those amino-acids. Life is everything.
If someone want to divide their "territory", please go ahead, but please remember it's just in your mind. You create life with concept of "'I' that lives", of "'Me' that is living' and start to divide me/not-me, life/death, etc... but those are just concepts, they only 'exists' as representations of 'the world' that 'the mind' tries to understand in order to use or 'live in'.
So for me it's irrelevant if something is considered alive or not. E.g.: when there will be a computer system that can mimic the brain in it's functions - it'll be just as alive as former.
"GCD embodies a philosophy that is at the opposite end of the spectrum from BeOS's "pervasive multithreading" design. Rather than achieving responsiveness by getting every possible component of an application running concurrently on its own thread (and paying a heavy price in terms of complex data sharing and locking concerns), GCD encourages a much more limited, hierarchical approach: a main application thread where all the user events are processed and the interface is updated, and worker threads doing specific jobs as needed."
Very good in-depth article btw. http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/1
...you neglected to mention FireFox... FireFox
Please, it's Firefox _not_ FireFox nor fire fox, thank, you.
Maybe after 4.5 it will be mature enough, like 3.5... oh wait