Re: [Algorithms] General purpose task parallel threading approach

[Jon W. <jw...@gm...>]

Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
> Actually you could, since you can just spawn the tasks in the order 
> you want to run them.

So the totally independent tasks xyzw, and the totally dependent tasks 
abcd need to be spawned in interspersed order? Across all executing 
threads? I shudder to think of the horribly convoluted code that would 
require -- it's pretty much impossible. Note that I view tasks as work 
items -- not as something that gets a regular tick each frame, but 
actually something which has an allocation, lifetime, and death 
(although various underlying data is likely pooled).

Tasks come from things like detecting collision, or exploding grenades, 
or passing triggers, or what have you -- they are not static.


> you can still do that without having a priority system since the order 
> in which tasks are spawned is deterministic.

Only in a world where the user is deterministic.

Sincerely,

jw