Re: Tasks - communication
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 22, 2012
- 1485 views
For the next two years, the logical approach to Tasks - communication is to use shared memory, not shared objects, i.e. all objects residing in shared memory space are available to all processes.
I like this idea. Shared memory IPC.
Since we are talking essentially of a single user desktop, there would be no particular need for high security - just a simple approach to use of that memory would suffice.
Sane OSes have builtin security measures for shared memory anyways, if you do need them.
For the next two years, the logical approach to multi - tasking is to take advantage of multi-core processors.
Agreed. What's with the "next two years" though?
For Euphoria, based on a quad core processor, multi - tasking and Tasks - communication is a feasible and desirable objective for eight simultaneous processes, without the system grinding to a halt.
So two Eu processes running per core on a quad core? Since you mean processes - we can do this already.
I am neither a C, nor a D programmer. However, I feel that anybody who can take a quantum jump from GW BASIC to Visual BASIC, from dBase to SQL and Hadoop, should be able to take the earthworm's jump from C to D, particularly if he is adapt in one or the other.
I look forward to seeing you make that jump and seeing what you come up with.
Beyond that, I would suggest you look at <snip> For those who live in the vicinity of Toronto <snip>
Something seems off here. It's like reading a horror story and then abruptly switching into a comedy routine. The segway is nonexistent and it's hard to see why you bring it up.
I do agree that these approaches require separate discussion threads and building dedicated teams.
Glad we can agree on that.
However, nothing can be archived by presuming any poster to be a novice when he makes a simple typo. I have treated everybody here as serious programmers, whose typos and apparent lack of understanding is to be overlooked or explained to them.
Here you made the same typo twice: archived instead of achieved. Or more likely, you copy and pasted when making the second post to the other thread.
However, I agree with your point. A coder's abilities should be judged by that person's code and troubleshooting skills, not by that coder's skill in a given spoken language. Likewise, a forum poster should be judged on other things, like clarity of communication and conflict resolution ability.
Still, you have to admit, making a typo of MB for GB, and then denying it when it was pointed out to you TWICE, was a pretty serious gaffe. I'm not saying that this means you are a novice to programming, just that you are someone who once made a gaffe.
