Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!udel!ee.udel.edu From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: True Multitasking Message-ID: <42149@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 19 Jan 91 01:00:26 GMT References: <1991Jan18.055614.13889@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 24 Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu I tried to mail this, but it bounced... In article you write: >Neither of these require lightweight processes. The latter one doesn't >require multitasking _at all_ - you can do it with co-routines and >asynch IO. The latter requires multitasking by definition (you >required two processes), but can be done with cooperative multitasking >- which means it could be done with co-routines inside one task. Please tell me the difference between coroutines and lightweight processes. I always thought that lightweight processes were two 'tasks' (i.e., independant program counters) sharing the same address space. I.e., the Amiga is one big process with lots of lightweight processes inside. I though coroutines were a specific mechanism for specifying creation and termination of lightweight processes. You make it sound as if coroutines are somehow simpler than lightweight processes, or that lightweight processes can do things that coroutines cannot. I'm interested in what you think the differences are. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=