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
PD-list@iem.at 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