3 ms·
The only way this would be valuable for every day use would be for programs that produce "close" output. Think of things like large scale simulations where sub-
by SoftwareMaven 15y ago
The only way this would be valuable for every day use would be for programs that produce "close" output. Think of things like large scale simulations where sub-simulations might go infinite, but if they do and this causes the output of the sub-simulation to change, it isn't likely to cause major changes in the macro-simulation.
Very little code is written that way, but when code is written that way, it allows much more interesting things to happen in software and hardware both.
- scott_s 15y agoI think you missed the obvious examples of content-creation applications like Word or Photoshop, where you could interrupt an infinite loop, save progress, then restart.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoI didn't miss them. I think those will be much harder to reliably interrupt loops, especially around file I/O. That infinite loop was caused by bad state and those programs (currently) don't handle bad state well.