what is the best using loop or timer?

Question

1.50/5 (4 votes)

See more:

programming

are the timer is best for processor and the physical memory....?

Posted 18-Aug-12 16:40pm

ahmed tb

Add a Solution

Comments

Ed Nutting 18-Aug-12 23:34pm

For which programming language? What would the loop/timer be doing? How frequently would the operation occur? Is it multi or single threaded? How many cores are you programming for? What defines "better" - responsiveness? Power consumption? CPU time used? Memory used?

Your question is far too vague. Please use the Improve Question link above.
Ed

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

v_wheeler · Accepted Answer · 2012-08-18T17:54:00

Hi! I am assuming you are looking to create a delay.

If so, the only place I know of that a loop for a delay is a good idea is in firmware development when YOU are the writer of the Operating System and you already KNOW that the CPU is not going to be needed for anything else during your delay. If you are developing for such an environment, often the library that comes with your compiler will offer some type of delay function that is very compact (one that comes to mind is only about 15 CPU instructions long) and provides very precise delays -- in the above case, with 25-nanosecond accuracy.

In all other applications, especially in a multi-tasking or multi-process or multi-threading operating system (which applies to most platforms out there, including mobile platforms, certainly all major operating systems [Unix, Linux, VMS, Windows]), often the operating system will offer a method of providing a delay. A timer is one such solution. In Windows, the normal method is a function called 'Sleep()' function in Kernel32.DLL (or Kernel32.lib if you need to link the call to the function into your program). If you're using the .NET Library, it provides at least a dozen different ways to enter a wait period, depending on circumstances. The .NET Library simple replacement for the Sleep() function above is System.Threading.Thread.Sleep().

If your environment doesn't provide a sleep function, I recommend looking for whatever "wait" services it provides and use one of them that suits your application. Using this approach gives the operating system the opportunity to put your process "on hold", thereby consuming zero CPU time while your process is awaiting the time interval to elapse. This helps keep the CPU load as low as possible. This is a good and important policy for most applications.

Commercial applications which use loops for delays (bad idea) can be unusable (and thus not worth paying for by your potential clients) due to the amount of CPU load they put on the system.

I hope this helps.
--Vic

Abhinav S · Accepted Answer · 2012-08-18T17:55:00

Solution 2

A loop could freeze the UI so a timer would be better, but in general, depends on what you are trying to do.

Posted 18-Aug-12 17:55pm

Abhinav S

Comments

Espen Harlinn 19-Aug-12 9:27am

5'ed!

Abhinav S 19-Aug-12 12:55pm

Thank you Espen.