Re: "Real" Multitasking (Re: GNO questions...)

[derek@slab.slip.uiuc.edu (Derek Taubert)]

> Alright, my apologies for stating my opinions in the first place.  As Derek
> has pointed out, no one has the right to state their own opinions unless they
> agree with his.  I should have cleared these posts with him first.  I'm truly
> sorry.

I have neither denied anyone their right to an opinion nor chastised you for
the pure act of expressing yours.  I am concerned that you are not supporting
your claims with any substantial evidence.  Talk is cheap.

> Derek, you just haven't got a clue, have you?  The whole point of my posts
> has been to try and explain that both approaches have their own merits.  I
> have plenty of solid ground to stand on for this point.  You seem to think
> my point is something other than this.  What, I don't know...

You are correct, I don't have _A_ clue, which you are obviously limited to.  I
have a deeper understanding of the problem and a more general knowledge of
the areas involved.  I'm eagerly waiting for your evidence in support of
co-operative multitasking, the rubbish you provided in your current post has
failed miserably as well (read on).

> If this is the case, why is everyone so convinced of the need to attack it?
> It neither NEEDS to be attacked not defended.  But as long as so many people
> are doing the one, why can't I do the other?  Ooops, I forgot, it's because
> your opinion is different.  I keep forgetting I only have the right to defend
> my opinions if you agree with them.  Sorry.

I'm not attacking co-operative multitasking, I'm attacking you for doing a
thoroughly rotten job of supporting it.  You have every right in the world to
defend whatever you like, but please don't start the debate unless you are
prepared to answer for your words.  Your arguments may be valid, but your
premises are just not true.

> There are a number of other reasons, some of which I've touched on briefly.
> I've always found one of the nicest things about cooperative multitasking is
> that you don't have to muddle with semaphores everytime different threads in
> your program want to access global data, OS routines, and so on.  This is the
> main reason why cooperative is usually best for running multiple threads in a
> single program.

This example does not support co-operative multitasking as far as (remember,
this was your word) "efficiency."  The only "advantage" gained in this example
is that the programmer is free to write sloppy code, rather than to think out
the problem carefully and code accordingly.  "Best" is a very poor choice of
wording here.  The amount of time spent routing program execution to support
co-operation would be much more "efficiently" spent working out the semaphores.

> I did refer to ignorance in my previous post, and thankt you for just making
> my point.  Your quotes "from previous article" and "current" are not in any
> way contradictory.  I have neither backed down one iota nor has my tone
> changed substantially.

Au contraire, mon amie.  You have, within the bounds of time, space, and two
postings, managed to insult myself and others purposefully, knowing full well
that your comments would not be taken lightly (I quote, "Those who wish to
flame me via E-mail"), and then had the utter gall to complain that somebody
actually made the mistake of taking your ramblings seriously, since you were
"simply providing an objective viewpoint."  Offensive to defensive, like a
child who has been caught in the act.

> My original point was that neither cooperative nor preemptive
> multitasking is more "real" than the other, that each has its merits, and I
> have yet to say anything contradictory to this.

Or in support of it, for that matter.

> Heh!  I should know better than to get into a battle of wits with someone who
> is obviously unarmed.

Bravo.  Very creditable and convincing.  I'm sure now that everyone will
unanimously agree that you stand on top in this battle.  Congratulations.

Derek