snark, snark!
Things are crazy around here, but I figured I couldn't leave all my loyal reader in the dark as to my whereabouts.
As you remember we had something of a hiccup with the coinstallers, and that just seemed to be followed by a flood of work items, bugs and such for the Windows 7 project.
I swear as soon as I can tell you anything about what we're doing I will and as soon as I can post something more interesting that the following, I will. :)
So, as I get older I find that my list of pet peeves or things I get all cranky about grows, I'd say exponentially, but it's more in the leaping incremental stage right now. The latest addition to my peeve list follows the onslaught of multicore CPUs and the staggering amount of confusing information out there that poor Average Joe / Josephine has to sift through. Of all that information, for some reason the one that really honks me is when people say, "you won't see any difference because <insert application name here> is single threaded..." *faint*
Wow, I didn't realize we were still in 1982! What usually confuses the purveyors of such statements is when I start explaining the Operating System thread scheduler with sprinkles of how the thread quantums and queues work. Then for some frosting, I follow this with some diatribe on how <insert application name here> is actually multithreaded, but just "weighted" towards a working single thread. Add a little demonstration on how many threads are actually running around in that process space and a touch of how <insert application name here> really just has some bad resource contention, synchronization and clunky included libraries that cause those child threads to just twiddle their thumbs until daddy thread tells them it's okay to do something.
Yes, I realize it's a stupid semantics issue, but I don't care. I'm old and cranky and the Sharks are playing horrible hockey and so are my beloved Canadiens. :(
Oh and get off my lawn. ;)
*Currently playing - Pink Floyd One Slip
