Making the word bigger doesn’t mean there’s more threads per, it just reduces the number of calls to complete some kinds of ops (and something about RAMing busses into each other and… cache locations? idk I’m sleepy)
The double deckers are an example of a ready-made solution in the original language’s standard library, the lower one is getting multithreading working through the C ABI bindings, using some 3rd party solution, all while multithreading a lot of other tasks in the application.
hang on, that first image is everything on a single thread…
Nah, those are double deckers.
Making the word bigger doesn’t mean there’s more threads per, it just reduces the number of calls to complete some kinds of ops (and something about RAMing busses into each other and… cache locations? idk I’m sleepy)
The double deckers are an example of a ready-made solution in the original language’s standard library, the lower one is getting multithreading working through the C ABI bindings, using some 3rd party solution, all while multithreading a lot of other tasks in the application.
Yeah, I can live with that. Well done!
nah, then each bus’s beginning and end would be restarting the whole program… the first picture should be a five lane freeway at rush hour
You sure they’re not dwords on a single bus?
Both decks of the bus follow the same [code] path. That’s a lot more like increasing the buffer size.
Hyperbus!
We’ve been swindled, perhaps even bamboozled!
Each bus is a timeslice