Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeder5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: setInterval
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:19:31 +0100
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <2860782.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de>
References: <6cb902b0-8913-4b65-954d-5d9f0e60ee95@googlegroups.com> <4cbfae02-e217-436d-8c41-004de444915c@googlegroups.com> <e806c910-79e5-4ac2-976f-b07b0b7e0cba@googlegroups.com> <daeac930-8fcd-48c9-b280-75144f751b0e@googlegroups.com> <8e741582-e2a8-4713-b49d-6bd5a50a8317@googlegroups.com> <fb53f70d-b831-4f1e-b290-eaad38124c77@googlegroups.com> <ac8011b3-9496-4559-a42b-c656798bfc44@googlegroups.com> <87h947e7f5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <82f4ba9f-8d80-4769-842a-5a9b066efb5a@googlegroups.com> <5898e78d$0$18070$e4fe514c@newszilla.xs4all.nl> <3141f801-2946-40fc-87ad-97668f7061e4@googlegroups.com> <XnsA714F29A92D37eejj99@194.109.6.166> <c8d749e4-8813-498c-a763-bc345854732d@googlegroups.com> <o7blfb$vpl$1@dont-email.me> <5012603.DvuYhMxLoT@PointedEars.de> <dcb0bec1-fee0-4745-908d-32f5aec52496@googlegroups.com> <2548632.e9J7NaK4W3@PointedEars.de> <679dc0d6-92ee-46da-93f0-49790b20cec0@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <cljs@PointedEars.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Trace: solani.org 1486505972 3629 eJwFwYkBgDAIA8CV5ElSxpEK+4/gHYLGqySYWKy+Vw5O3s49rCd6IHKq2p0WJAGt47TM4gcPSg/9 (7 Feb 2017 22:19:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 22:19:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2
X-User-ID: eJwNwoERACEIA7CVqlLAcQTr/iP8X8LlwzvM6cb3A5txS1Qn9rmNBFrOtNQLG5q9sWYdYdVzRfnmuCRmGD5ZRxUu
Face: 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
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
Cancel-Lock: sha1:74PB2l6KtKx1BhXTSdIt2S++dQg=
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BLfAlFDqzFv4Tdwan8MggGFmsxVy5KDYIReG0yut95IrcrYLSjQFuOOH8GjhAB
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:32560

Julio Di Egidio wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 9:54:37 PM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> Lahn wrote:

It’s called attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> <snip>
>> > the reason being that with setInterval one has to make sure that the
>> > interval delay is not shorter than the job that has to be executed at
>> > every interval, otherwise the browser chokes,
>> 
>> Which browser, and how so?
> 
> I should have said the process chokes, not the browser: that has nothing
> to do with the specific browser, it is just the fact that if the job to
> run at intervals is not guaranteed to run in a time shorter than the
> interval delay, events will rather start piling up and call-backs will
> happen just as fast as the job manages to complete at each iteration.

I can accept that explanation for code that could run asynchronously, e.g. 
if one is assigning to DOM properties that affect rendering.  Which is why I 
have been recommending against using window.setInterval() for smooth 
animations (although scripting is hardly needed these days for animations).

However, at base, ECMAScript function code is still executed in a *single* 
thread.

Are you suggesting that the browser/user agent will, in any case, call a 
copy of the same function again *before* the first call has returned?
If so, in which runtime environments have you observed this behavior?

> But there is even more to it: JS being event-driven,

How did you get that idea?  You have to differentiate between the ECMAScript 
programming language, its implementations, and the language-independent 
interfaces that can be used with the latter.  See my sig.

> the interval provided by setInterval is in fact approximate, and to have a 
> more reliable timing,

I do not see the relation between event-driven programming and 
window.setInterval().  ISTM you are grasping at straws here.

> […]
> And that should be quite enough to convince the casual programmer.

It would be enough to convince the casual programmer, but that is not me.

> The professional has thought out and knows that stuff pretty much since 
> the dawn of the language.

It is equally possible that the so-called professional is actually a wannabe 
and just thinks that he knows what is going on.
 
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.