LLO!

And here I thought insanity was the outcome of trying to figure out why you get different results when doing the same thing over and over again.

Well, one could argue that the fun in multi-threading is proving you are doing the same thing over and over again to lead to the same results. So it feels insane but it is perfectly rational and really just insanely complex.

It is easy to forget that time is variable too. Its just one that we can't control (at least not in the absolute sense), so it is usually considered to be a dependent variable.

In many cases, you may be doing exactly the same thing, but another unidentified or difficult/impossible to control variable may be changing (such as the OS performing context switches). Getting deterministic results isn't always easy.

Sorry to be a stickler, but Einstein probably never said this. See

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_the_definition_of_insanity_is_to_do_the_same_thing_over_and_over_and_expect_different_results

and

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=33566

As several posters commented, this comment goes against the idea of "if first you don't succeed, try, try again", which Einstein probably would have agreed with.

If that were indeed the true definition of insanity, then all fisherman would have to be wackos. Well, perhaps some are...

:)

Not sure why that first link I posted got mangled... Here's another try. http://tinyurl.com/lx698m

From https://twitter.com/#!/nedbat/statuses/194452404794691584:

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think, "I know, I'll use threads," and then two they hav erpoblesms.

A mentor of mine always liked pointing out "Computers are deterministic" whenever we complained we couldn't reproduce a bug.

Well, this still holds true.

Doing threads, is indeed, fitting of the description of insanity. If you aren't when you start, you may be by the time you're done. :)

@Steve : It's true, but we are never fully aware of what we asked it to do. ;)