Otto Chrons
Otto Chrons
@ogier then you agree with me in saying that the Node.js example should be removed altogether, as it creates zero async tasks :) For some reason, though, the author(s) accepted...
And you should also mesure the memory overhead, not just CPU. With 10M iterations the Go version takes 5GB of memory and at 20M iterations I had to kill the...
I've updated the Scala Future implementation to use real Futures at the leaf level, so now it indeed creates 1,111,111 async tasks like the Go version. Takes 380ms to run...
@ogier The .NET Core implementation is using `Task.FromResult` which is equivalent to `Future.successful`. Although it's calling the function in a `Task.Run` so maybe that doesn't matter. https://github.com/atemerev/skynet/blob/master/dnx/Program.cs#L51
I don't quite understand why the idiomatic Scala code should be changed to match some C# Task concept. If the call to `skynet` was wrapped in a `Future` it would...
@schmitch The operation of `Future.sequence` is not exactly like that. Mostly the code is run in the context (and thread) of the future that's being completed (a callback registered with...
Is there some reason why this PR has not been merged, especially now that there are separate results for different concurrency types?
Only the leaf nodes in the Future tree complete immediately with the value, as they should. If you run the program, it will fully use all available cores to perform...
Call to the Future `map` method is performed asynchronously.
With `Future(num.toLong)` execution time goes up from 250ms to 390ms.