New ConKit (10077) eating up System resources!

[jte]

(04-26-2016 02:43 PM)eried Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 10:16 PM)jte Wrote:  

(04-25-2016 04:57 PM)eried Wrote:  It is like if Excel worked sluggish when the user wanted to do his monthly accounts because Excel can handle multi-billion digit accounts.

Algorithms that scale better (e.g., have better asymptotic characteristics) often do have larger fixed (more precisely: larger constants involved in their resource-consumption bounds) costs. They're not just more work to implement correctly (which is a real limitation), but also require more computational resources for smaller / simpler problem instances. (This doesn't take into account the additional requirements placed on / features expected of software over time. What a word processor does on an 8-bit home computer of the 70s / 80s is quite different than what is done by a word processor on a 64-bit home computer of the 10s.)

I don't see the point of your comment.

The point of my comment was to state that I wouldn't assume that later version of Excel that are designed to better handle larger and more complex data sets (than earlier versions of Excel) are as efficient at handling basic data sets as older, simpler, versions of Excel. This effect would be masked by the steady increase in computational power available to the typical end user (which happens when they upgrade their hardware) - much of this happens within the noise floor (from the perspective of a typical user - I'm not talking about running precise timers / diagnostics etc.) nowadays (it doesn't invariably lead to observed sluggishness - but observed sluggishness certainly was the case as programs became more sophisticated decades back).

(04-26-2016 02:43 PM)eried Wrote:  It is just not really acceptable to waste a whole cpu core for an empty window, no matter how it is explained.

I wasn't trying to explain this as being acceptable. I didn't write this part of the code and haven't looked at it. I wouldn't, however, immediately assume that it is "wasting a whole core" - or at least wouldn't phrase it that way as that tends to be an oversimplification. It may, instead, be consuming a whole core as it is not needed (being requested) for anything else (its use of the core may drop dramatically if another process starts consuming more cycles; tight polling loops, e.g., can keep a core busy and prevent a reduction in energy consumption / heat production on modern CPUs - tight polling loops may thus waste energy but nevertheless step out of the limelight when another process starts to use more cycles). To be excessively pedantic: I'm not saying that this is ideal (or acceptable or whatever else: I'm just saying what I said…)