realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Dealing with multi-processor or multi-core

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with multi-processor or multi-core
From: Giovanni <rbml at alphaview dot com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:41:03 -0700
Authentication-results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com designates 66.116.103.65 as permitted sender) smtp dot mail=realbasic-nug-bounces at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <p06240802c4657bd7c318 at [62 dot 161 dot 36 dot 122]> <41B4C50C-AB85-4975-B2AE-C6A4DD49D787 at inspiringapps dot com> <48400D8C dot 7090301 at chrononomicon dot com> <82A8561F-6BA6-4CA0-8380-90FF958EEBF1 at great-white-software dot com>
Which is not that big of a deal until now, where the anoying helper  
app folders will be constructect by 2008r2 and on.

Giovanni
•••••••••••••••••

On May 30, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Norman Palardy <npalardy at great-white-software 
dot com 
 > wrote:

>
> On 30-May-08, at 8:22 AM, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
>
>>
>> Joe Strout wrote:
>>
>>> Get over it.  Preemptive multitasking is, in general, very bad mojo.
>>> If you access ANY functions that are not thread-safe (and this would
>>> include pretty much the entire framework, as well as many of the OS
>>> functions that you use even for simple things like drawing to a
>>> window), then your program will have obscure bugs that will crop
>>> up in
>>> odd circumstances after your software is released.  The Windows
>>> platform layer used to use preemptive threads, and it was a  
>>> nightmare
>>> -- one that ended only when they coded a cooperative multitasking  
>>> system like the Mac already had.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on this? I thought all NT lineage was  
>> preemptively
>> multitasking, with a Win16 compatibility system for older  
>> applications
>> that was cooperatively multitasked within itself...?
>
> Sure
> An RB app on Windows isn't internally preemptively threaded
>
>>> To make use of multiple processors safely (in ANY language), you  
>>> need
>>> to divide your work into separate processes.  In RB, the best way to
>>> do this is via a helper app that you would access via the Shell.
>>> It's
>>> not that hard to do, and it's 100% safe.
>>
>> You're saying design your app to be multiprocess and not
>> multithreaded?
>
> In RB thats how you use multiple processors at present
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
> <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
>
> Search the archives:
> <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>