On Dec 31, 2006, at 5:09 PM, carmen wrote:
Yes, a lot of this kind of stuff is done for efficiency's sake,
like messages vs. audio rate data.
also for efficieny's sake (on the implementation side), some of the
newer graphical dataflow / patcher engines consider them one and
the same, and solve the rate-efficiency issue by allowing a mix of
a wide range of threads of varying execution rate (chuck calls them
Shreds) in synch in the same subpatch...
Since there is often talk of threading on here, I want to clarify
ChucK's "shreds" a bit. ChucK does not use threads like pthreads, or
Mac OS X/Windows threads. Its shreds are more like Windows 3.1
threads, i.e. cooperative or "non-preemptive" as they put it.
Basically, its structured quite similarly to Pd, Csound, etc., except
that the scheduler is more flexible and exposed. Plus, you have to
handle a lot of the scheduling.
.hc
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/
listinfo/pd-list
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
