Re: Tasks - communication
- Posted by useless_ Oct 21, 2012
- 1686 views
Kat, I don't think you are correct with that assertion. Can you tell me exactly what was the opposition you are referring to? And how do you define "a lot of opposition" in this context?
I think that having inter-task communication is imperative, especially for safe access to shared data between tasks.
I think it sounds like a nice thing to have, too. My recollection was that other issues (mainly how to deal with translated dlls) sidetracked the whole multi-tasking thing. And the messaging was just collateral damage.
Matt
Since all my working code right now is running interpreted and not compiled, that wasn't an issue. I wrongly assumed a notice about using tasks.e in compiled code wasn't a problem. I'd have voted, and i think i did, provide the functionality of tasks for interpreted apps and then fix the compiler asap. Instead, tasks were relegated to the back seat and there's still issues regarding dlls even without tasks.
I seem to remember too that since i used simple (barely) linked lists instead of maps.e, anything i wrote was going to be gutted merely to use maps. Including maps was going to eat more computer resourses than any gain to be had, but using the newfangled maps was more important consideration than my existing work, than my decision to go with a couple of simple linked lists. I felt lower than dirt, i gave up. It was one of those straws on the proverbial camel.
useless
