Hi, On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mike Erwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Sergey Sharybin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But C++11 threading / async / concurrency is so nice! As long as BLI offers > similar perks... does it? I get the point about single scheduler. > Threading/concurrency in C++11 would be platform and std implementation dependent. Which is always a major PITA,b because then you would have no clue if something is fast or slow. It will also introduce yet-another-threading-pool which is also no-good at all. BLI's threading becomes more comprehensive and bet more improvement will be done there for the nodify-everything freak of nature. I would really suggest sticking to a single task scheduler every since now. > Why a limited subset? I'm guessing it's for sanity reasons and not compiler > support, as all major platforms have caught up. I worked with a person that > just discovered lambdas and was using them in every possible situation... > but if a particular C++11 feature is right for the job why not allow it? > Just to keep code clear and understandable. Without situations like "i used shared pointer + auto + lambda just because language allows this and it looks cool to me". I'll be really pushing here the idea that code should be staying clear and self-explanatory and explicit, with sane decisions about what to use. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
