| ??? 06/04/07 12:44 Read: times |
#140232 - Well, yes, actually... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Just seeing it formalized like that helps on several levels. First, it vastly clarifies my own muddled thoughts on the issue; second, it gives me a potential insight into what's considered good practices in this field. I'm a co-op student, and I'm apparently expected to know this stuff instinctively; every little bit helps.
Thought from a newbie: this structure implies that it's considered better to keep the main loop going as fast as possible and check for time elapsed to perform actions, rather than stalling the main loop for that amount of time? Many Thanks, Bob Robertson |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Software design problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Something like this, maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, yes, actually... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and a question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Which ones did you look at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and an answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Is it not possible to | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Horses for courses | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have fun | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A Queue? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I used what I called a \'cache\' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Gah, code repost | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you need to read it all, THEN process | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your approach is much more general... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Prioritizing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some suggestions Bob | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thank you, sir! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Division / modulus not always slow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Are we making this too difficult? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't think so, it seems to work pretty well... | 01/01/70 00:00 |