3 ms·
Yes it is. Synchronous calls monopolize the event loop so everything - including page interactions - freeze until the control flow finishes busy-waiting. Yay, s
by ledriveby 9y ago
Yes it is. Synchronous calls monopolize the event loop so everything - including page interactions - freeze until the control flow finishes busy-waiting. Yay, single threading.
- masswerk 9y agoOn the other hand, well-known constructs as used for translating FORTRAN labels to switch statements have been around for ages. E.g., function main(entrypoint) { switch (entrypoint) { default: case 0: // do some (...) // now drop the thread and wait for input (external) myInputFunc(function(result) { main(1, result); }); break; case 1: // return to here from input var value = arguments[1]; // now do something with it ... break; } } function myInputFunc(callback) { // in actuality this might be servicing a more complex UI document.querySelector('#inputField').oninput = function() { callback(this.value); }; }
- masswerk 9y agoThis way we were porting former terminal services to web applications back in the last century ... (Maybe requesting additional server data by what would be called padded JSON nowadays via a hidden frame, because no AJAX. And, maybe, we would have rather used global vars for control than anonymous functions, but this another story.) :-)
- marcosdumay 9y agoEverybody solves that by having multiple threads (either at the OS or runtime level), so you can run in parallel the stuff that don't conflict with each other.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rmrfrmrf 9y agoDo you, as a user, want web pages to spawn multiple threads on your machine?
- marcosdumay 9y agoWell, first, you are completely ignoring the possibility of runtime threads. Also, why not? Do you see any problem with that? As long as their numbers are limited, I don't see any problem?