Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Multi-tasking and Multi-user
Message-ID: <1610.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 27 Aug 90 03:30:46 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 29

Category 3,  Topic 14
Message 12        Sun Aug 26, 1990
R.BERKEY [Robert]            at 14:51 PDT
 
 
 From: GEnie R.BERKEY (Robert)
 Subject: Re: Experimental Ideas

In <GEnie Category 3, Topic 5, Message 36, Mon Jul 30, 1990, at 00:48 CDT>,
F.SERGEANT [Frank] writes:

   >   I've thought one of CM's ideas on multi-tasking was that
   > instead of having a single task requiring complicated
   > co-ordination, you have a number of simple tasks, each of which
   > can be tested alone.  So, in (this) theory, multi-tasking should
   > make the debugging easier, but it sounds like you have experience
   > to the contrary.


Oh, I wouldn't disagree with CM's analysis.  One of my problems was that I had
no experience in developing personal tools for working with the various tasks.
Maybe I could have factored it better to make it easier to test, who knows. 
The issue remains that when another task has no terminal i/o, the normal
display tools must be modified, access is different to the user variables, and
this complicates debugging.

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us