2 ms·

Doesn't Windows have timers that actually notify you via window messages or callbacks (like SetTimer())?

monocasa 7y ago
Windows has a ton of subsystem specific hacks each with their own drawbacks. Which brings me back to my main point against the GPs > They should just bite the bullet and implement WaitForMultipleObjects instead of having all these disjoint APIs
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > Windows has a ton of subsystem specific hacks each with their own drawbacks. Is this your way of saying "I can't think of any legitimate response, but I insist the Windows API must suck because that's just how I feel about it"? I literally told you there is a proper solution that turns out to be different than what you're expecting coming from Linux, and instead of either realizing it's a good solution or telling me why it isn't, you just trashed the OS and told me it sucks.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    It's my way of trying to keep the conversation on the topic of the actual article, rather than turning it into a generic Linus v Cutler boxing match where both of their syscall interfaces are on the table. And staying on the topic of mutexes, that "just spawn another thread for every 64 items you want to wait on" (which I already knew about) is about the hackiest shit ever. (And FWIW, I started off as a Win32 developer, have code in ReactOS, and have written NT and WinCE drivers. You're not talking to some Linux fanboy)
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      > And staying on the topic of mutexes, that "just spawn another thread for every 64 items you want to wait on" (which I already knew about) is about the hackiest shit ever. Is this surprising to you? I already told you it would be a hack because I told you there is a better and proper solution for the actual problem you were encountering. You're stubbornly insisting for no reason on actively doing something bizarre, and you're frustrated you need an obtuse hack to make it happen? If you're trying so hard to "stay on the topic of mutexes" why do you trash WFMO for the "silly 64 item cap" and then repeatedly refuse to provide a single situation in which waiting on 64 mutexes would actually come up as a legitimate problem? Somehow you find the inability to use a wrong method to solve a problem whose existence you can't even show evidence of to be "silly"?
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Windows runs on single socket systems with 128 cores. If you can't think of some time you might need to wait on more than 64 items at a time, you only have your own lack of imagination to blame.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        The number of mutexes I generally wait on has nothing to do with how many cores my computer has. But I'm giving up on the hope that you'll ever share with us your wonderful imagination.

Windows has a ton of subsystem specific hacks each with their own drawbacks. Which brings me back to my main point against the GPs > They should just bite the bullet and implement WaitForMultipleObjects instead of having all these disjoint APIs

mehrdadn 7y ago
> Windows has a ton of subsystem specific hacks each with their own drawbacks. Is this your way of saying "I can't think of any legitimate response, but I insist the Windows API must suck because that's just how I feel about it"? I literally told you there is a proper solution that turns out to be different than what you're expecting coming from Linux, and instead of either realizing it's a good solution or telling me why it isn't, you just trashed the OS and told me it sucks.
- monocasa 7y ago
  It's my way of trying to keep the conversation on the topic of the actual article, rather than turning it into a generic Linus v Cutler boxing match where both of their syscall interfaces are on the table. And staying on the topic of mutexes, that "just spawn another thread for every 64 items you want to wait on" (which I already knew about) is about the hackiest shit ever. (And FWIW, I started off as a Win32 developer, have code in ReactOS, and have written NT and WinCE drivers. You're not talking to some Linux fanboy)
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    > And staying on the topic of mutexes, that "just spawn another thread for every 64 items you want to wait on" (which I already knew about) is about the hackiest shit ever. Is this surprising to you? I already told you it would be a hack because I told you there is a better and proper solution for the actual problem you were encountering. You're stubbornly insisting for no reason on actively doing something bizarre, and you're frustrated you need an obtuse hack to make it happen? If you're trying so hard to "stay on the topic of mutexes" why do you trash WFMO for the "silly 64 item cap" and then repeatedly refuse to provide a single situation in which waiting on 64 mutexes would actually come up as a legitimate problem? Somehow you find the inability to use a wrong method to solve a problem whose existence you can't even show evidence of to be "silly"?
    - monocasa 7y ago
      Windows runs on single socket systems with 128 cores. If you can't think of some time you might need to wait on more than 64 items at a time, you only have your own lack of imagination to blame.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        The number of mutexes I generally wait on has nothing to do with how many cores my computer has. But I'm giving up on the hope that you'll ever share with us your wonderful imagination.