Jump to content

hsvandrew

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by hsvandrew


  1. I'm going to pause this rant for now, perhaps these issues have been resolved and its just the tickets in quality control haven't been closed. 

    We spend a lot of time on this in January and it failed miserably (especially for Linux) so we gave up.

    It appears it might be ok now on 10.2.3/10.3 I will do some more testing and advise

    • Like 1

  2. 1 hour ago, pyscripter said:

    Of course not.

    However parallel programming is not a piece of cake.   There are so many ways you can shoot yourself in the foot and then blame the library.

    Ok I'm prepared to concede this problem isn't happening anymore on 10.2.3 (some of these results came from earlier in 2018) - it is possible this is a linux only problem as that was the platform where this issue was experienced


  3. After much pain and cost and time wasted, I wanted to leave this note for others

    TTask, Parallel Library -- DO NOT USE

    My advice to all Delphi developers: stick with OmniThread or write your own ThreadPool using TThread's. 

    The Parallel Task Library (TTask, Parallel For loops etc) are all based on completely flawed code that still isn't fixed in Rio

     

    You'll invest many hours moving code across to TTask and then have to deal with all the core fundamental issues which you may not notice under normal conditions.

     

    These include:

    Flawed logic that runs only a few threads at a time (worse on a virtual machine)

    Flaws which sometimes stop tasks from starting at all

    Faults that, due to point 1 could result in a complete bottleneck of your app if you nest TTasks which may be hard to detect inside other functions

    Memory leaks on Linux n 10.2.x

     

    Hope this helps someone. We have got to the point where we try to avoid all new EMB built libraries where possible when a third party solution exists as we know it will be supported, tested and properly written.

    • Thanks 1
×