3 ms·

But that only happens when the result is the same as if the instructions were ran synchronously, and synchronization primitives are still needed at the end of t

But that only happens when the result is the same as if the instructions were ran synchronously, and synchronization primitives are still needed at the end of these sections. Even if they weren't, the abstraction layer that you work at with Node is far, far above the point where you care about instruction reordering. If synchronicity is an inherent property of the process that you're implementing (e.g. you want to insert something in the database and then log an event) then no amount of shuffling will alleviate the fact that the logging has to happen after the database insertion. Edit: the fact that deep down they reorder instructions is a bit scholastic, but if we are to go into these details, it's worth remembering that even the instruction reordering happens synchronously, and that even asynchronous events, like input from an off-chip peripheral, are treated synchronously. The turtles are synchronous all the way :-).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
the_duke 10y ago
Haha yeah, sure. Reading the input from an IO device once it's been delivered is synchronous. But IO is not handled in an synchronous fashion. If CPU cores just waited around idling until a hard drive is done fetching the data (for example), our computers would be very slow indeed. That was my main point.
- notalaser 10y ago
  Ah, certainly. In a similar manner, what I meant is that oftentimes it's the process itself that's synchronous, and if the semantics of a language or a toolkit make it difficult to manipulate this sort of flow, people complain. I've done too little work with Node to have a constructive opinion on it, but I've occasionally had similar complaints about Qt, which I've used a lot more. It uses a signal-slot paradigm where you basically say "when this event is triggered, this function gets called" (in a callback-like, but somewhat more powerful and flexible fashion). It's great for a lot of things, but makes it hard to read and reason about synchronous operations that have to be fit into this form. Ultimately, though, people cope with it and write working software with it. I imagine it's the same with Node :-).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

the_duke 10y ago

Haha yeah, sure. Reading the input from an IO device once it's been delivered is synchronous. But IO is not handled in an synchronous fashion. If CPU cores just waited around idling until a hard drive is done fetching the data (for example), our computers would be very slow indeed. That was my main point.

notalaser 10y ago
Ah, certainly. In a similar manner, what I meant is that oftentimes it's the process itself that's synchronous, and if the semantics of a language or a toolkit make it difficult to manipulate this sort of flow, people complain. I've done too little work with Node to have a constructive opinion on it, but I've occasionally had similar complaints about Qt, which I've used a lot more. It uses a signal-slot paradigm where you basically say "when this event is triggered, this function gets called" (in a callback-like, but somewhat more powerful and flexible fashion). It's great for a lot of things, but makes it hard to read and reason about synchronous operations that have to be fit into this form. Ultimately, though, people cope with it and write working software with it. I imagine it's the same with Node :-).