[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 92 17:58:23 -0400
From: david carlton <email@example.com>
>> Date: Sat, 30 May 92 12:31:05 -0400
>> From: david carlton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> With terminals, there is essentially no loss from not buffering
>> output, since programs can generate unbuffered output faster than
>> humans or terminals can handle.
From: Aubrey Jaffer
> You have this backwards. There would be a very large performance
> impact because you would be requiring your process to be running to
> send each character.
It must be admitted that terminal output buffering is not critical on a 10
MIPS (not even the current state of the art) single-user workstation the way
it was on the PDP 11/45 of Unix's ancestry. I think the standard wisdom on
this issue is becoming outdated.
I'm with David -- I think many Schemes can get by with no terminal output
buffering, and those that absolutely require higher performance (e.g., because
they are for use by students crammed 30 to the CPU), and therefore have to
buffer output, should make this transparent by flushing buffers automatically
every 500 ms or so. I don't know for sure, but I would think most Un*xes
ought to be able to handle that.