[PD] [*] vs [*~]

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Tue Jan 2 00:06:32 CET 2007

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.


> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at 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

More information about the Pd-list mailing list