No, but it was also named in the 60s. If someone was three comments deep replying to people asking about it, at some point someone would say "it's quick and in place because it does a recursive partition".
3,453 karma · joined October 19, 2014
Niche experiments having features doesn't accomplish anything, but adding just one more feature to C seems plausible.
With C++ people could point people to another production ready language compatible with C that people could use, so there was somewhere they could do and an example of the feature working instead of someone promising silver bullets in theory.
Not relevant.
what gets killed by alcohol is not what gets killed by refined sugars
This has nothing to do with the discussion.
very different end products with very different effects
In this case they share the effects being talked about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8G8tLsl_A4
And overweight is not caused by sugar or by alcohol directly,
They are the major contributing factors to obesity. This is not generally disputed. It is a systemic problem and trying to deny the problems by saying the primary factor isn't "the direct cause" (without any detail, nuance or information of your own) is the kind of hand waving people have been doing to obscure people understanding these problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fermentation
https://thep53.com/how-alcohol-is-metabolized-and-its-relati...
https://scitechdaily.com/the-sugar-pathway-that-links-alcoho...
The difference between out two comments is that what I said is relevant and sourced.
The point here is saying "fruit is healthy" is just not true in any sort of black and white sense. Someone can easily get fat and be unhealthy by eating fruits with lots of sugar, and if they are juicing them, even more so.
When you see how much sugar it takes to make alcohol it starts to make sense.
If you think of the specialty oranges like cuties and halos, they are loaded with sugar, that's why they taste so good.
Apples and bananas still won't help you lose weight. Tomatoes have much less sugar and could actually be helpful to be less hungry without many calories.
There is no easy way out, you can't just eat a bunch of sugar loaded fruit and think the fiber will totally protect you or that because it is "fruit" it's healthy.
That's what I answered.
are you implying you were calling my first comment a meltdown? Weird.
Trying to make things up that never happened?
No it wasn't (I think you meant rhetorical). They might just have not expected a reply.
And you were just as stubborn/'meltdown'
I didn't reply to you.
when repeatedly insisting it was about latency. They never mentioned latency.
I mentioned it once you mentioned overhead, because that's what is actually important between processes.
Where are you getting this information?
They asked two questions and I answered one. You hallucinated timings to imaginary functions you couldn't name.
Period. I'm leaving now.
You inserted yourself and had a meltdown. I don't know why this was so upsetting but you couldn't actually give a single technical detail, it was just "I just know" and "ask them what function I'm talking about".
They did ask it because I quoted it and replied. That's how these forums work. People write text and other people reply to it.
The way you argued implies you weren't doing that on purpose, and thought you were answering their actual question.
No, that's not true, I think you made all that up.
why did you argue with me???
You replied to me.
Good, because that's what I meant to do, which is why that's what I quoted.
No you haven't, you keep talking about doing something 100 times, but if you have a lock between processes, getting those processes to wake up and know the unlock happened with low latency is what matters. After the unlock whatever happens is going to be fast anyway, which in IPC is probably going to be copying memory.
What specific function call are you thinking of that would have high overhead but not latency and the latency wouldn't matter?
you originally responded to
I replied to someone saying "how often do you use a shared lock in games" and I said there are obvious uses.
No, latency is what matters.
And I was pointing out that a voice IPC lock is still "rare" when we use the most appropriate definition of "rare"
This isn't really a point with explanation, it's just you saying 'nu uh', even though that was just a single example.
This is just saying "I just know", but what specific function and basic timings are you going off of? If you don't know, why are you so sure of the numbers?
The whole point of the complaint was wtallis claiming the inter-process-capable lock was being used for locks that don't need it! That's the foundation of this conversation!
They were saying it's rare to need IPC lock for video games and I don't think that's true, then I gave a scenario where you would use one.
What are the two functions you're comparing and what is the actual difference in overhead that you're talking about?
a lock that can be shared between processes versus a lock that can't be.
This is a dramatic black and white difference, these would be used for two different things. In that case it's apple and oranges, one would be for interprocess communication and one wouldn't.
the difference between those two lock styles shouldn't be more than about a microsecond,
What are you basing this on? Do you have an examples or benchmarks of the actual calls and their timings?
fine for a lock that's only used 100 times a second.
Again, latency isn't about how many times something is called per second. That would matter for throughput.
What calls specifically are you talking about between windows and linux? This was started by someone talking about WaitForMultipleObjects.