Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Fri 27th May 2011 11:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 474877
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-24
Performance really depends on the exact implementation.
In my (private)LoonCAFE project I use an almost fully async API ( with optional blocking calls ).
Performance is actually significantly better with callbacks and signals overall and the applications feel much better - especially when things really get heavy.
It would seem that latency would increase but I have not experienced that at all. The overhead is extremely minimal for callbacks and signals, being no more than the overhead of calling a function - or a simple loop in the case of a signal ( signals really serve a different purpose, though ).
Which is to say, not much in my implementation. An extra 'call' ain't very expensive.
--The loon