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

[jimmys@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Jimmy Shaw)]

In article <1993Apr22.154817.5639@slab.slip.uiuc.edu> derek@slab.slip.uiuc.edu (Derek Taubert) writes:
>slp@vax1.mankato.msus.edu said:
>> Sorry for the second post in a row, but I just reread my post and I think I
>> failed to emphasize what was in fact the point of my original post, and the
>
>It would be more appropriate that you apologize for making the FIRST post.
>
>> Likewise, if someone asks, "Which is better, cooperative or preemptive
>> multitasking?" an ignorant individual would reply "[one or the other] is
>> better."  A more knowledgable programmer knows that each has its advantages
>> and disadvantages.  Only the ignorant believe one is better than the other,
>> period.
[bit heaven bound]
>> If you believe [type1] multitasking is better than [type2]
>> multitasking in all situations, you're an idiot, and you only display your
>> ignorance whenever you rag on one type or the other because you believe
>> [type1] is always better in all situations.

All this talk of one type being definitely better than another reminded
me of a discussion in one of my CS classes, when the professor said in
certain instances, BUBBLE SORT can and is more efficient than BINARY
SORT, of course, N would have to be really small, and the samples
should not be too randomly distributed, that we shouldn't assume
BINARY sort to be superior all the time.

SO: I guess there are instances where Cooperative IS better than Preemptive :)


Jimmy




--
Jimmy Shaw		    RamFAST, ZipGSX and System 6... Apple II Forever!
jimmys@ics.uci.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------