On 29 Apr 2009, at 06:32, Kassen wrote:
Tom; <
>>
I really appreciate ChucK's deterministic timing approach, but I predict that Impromptu's non-deterministic approach is ultimately a significant advantage. Howzzat? ChucK promises deterministic timing on a single processor. The only way ChucK can take advantage of multiple processors is by synching them together, and techniques for synchronizing multiple ChucKs are generally non-deterministic. And it takes extra work to do this. If I understand correctly, Impromptu uses any available processing power, regardless of where it comes from. So I believe that in a world where processing power gets cheaper and faster every year, Impromptu will have an advantage. - Rob [P.S.: It's like the early arguments that Ethernet was useless for real-time processing because it was inherently non-deterministic. As Ethernet got faster (3mbps, 10mbps, 100mbps, 1gbps) that argument largely fell by the wayside.]