Le 2011-11-03 à 15:52:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
On Nov 3, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-11-03 à 15:32:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
Threading is not the only way to do concurrency. Think of all of
those objects in your patch, they are all running in parallel. And
you had to do nothing to make sure that they run in parallel, don't
block each other, sync up, etc.
Are you talking about Pd ?
(you surely are not)
It is only recently that threads started to run at actually the same
time, and that is still not a guaranteed thing. So yes, we experience
apps running "at the same time" but for the most part, there is a lot of
time slicing involved, just like Pd. There is only one arm on the hard
disk heads still, for example.
Which objects of Pd are actually using threads ?
It's not all of them.
Think of what is taught as the execution order of Pd, and think about how
it conflicts with the idea of running everything in parallel.
Actually, among academics, the #1 reason for refusing to call Pd a
dataflow language, is because they use a definition of «dataflow» that
allows all messages to be threaded, whereas Pd is threading very few
things.
What is the goal of Miller's new [pd~] project ? It exists because Pd
itself is not already doing it.
______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
