On 2022-08-09 at 17:04:51 +0000, "Schachner, Joseph (US)" <joseph.schach...@teledyne.com> wrote:
> Why would this application *require* parallel programming? This could > be done in one, single thread program. Call time to get time and save > it as start_time. Keep a count of the number of 6 hour intervals, > initialize it to 0. In theory, you are correct. In practice, [stuff] happens. What if your program crashes? Or the computer crashes? Or there's a Python update? Or an OS update? Where does all that pending data go, and how will you recover it after you've addressed whatever happened? ¹ OTOH, once you start writing the pending data to a file, then it's an extremely simple leap to multiple programs (rather than multiple threads) for all kinds of good reasons. ¹ FWIW, I used to develop highly available systems, such as telephone switches, which allow [stuff] to happen, and yet continue to function. It's pretty cool to yank a board (yes, physically remove it, without warning) from the system without [apparently] disrupting anything. Such systems also allow for hardware, OS, and application upgrades, too (IIRC, we were allowed a handful of seconds of downtime per year to meet our availability requirements). That said, designing and building such a system for the sakes of simplicity and convenience of the application we're talking about here would make a pretty good definition of "overkill." -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
