(07-30-2013, 06:14 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:06 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 12:51 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 10:43 AM)Platinum Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 10:42 AM)Sempiternal Wrote: While that may be true, it isn't up to the API creator to deter instances of lag. The coder using the API may be poorly using it, but there are very professional ways to make it work.

Do you have Skype? I'd love to talk to you about some things.

Hmm yeah add me on Skype: junnesejer

Setup a thread instead of using a timer.

A constantly running thread to update data at a regular interval would actually use more memory than a timer would. It is what timers were designed to do; update data at regular intervals. Whereas threading was designed to allow asynchronous code execution. Timers are perfectly fine when used correctly and actually better than threads in some instances.

Better to not use a control when you can do the same thing without one.

(07-30-2013, 06:49 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:14 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:06 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 12:51 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 10:43 AM)Platinum Wrote: Hmm yeah add me on Skype: junnesejer

Setup a thread instead of using a timer.

A constantly running thread to update data at a regular interval would actually use more memory than a timer would. It is what timers were designed to do; update data at regular intervals. Whereas threading was designed to allow asynchronous code execution. Timers are perfectly fine when used correctly and actually better than threads in some instances.

Better to not use a control when you can do the same thing without one.

That logic is so flawed.. You are completely avoiding a control that was designed to do the exact thing you want to do, without eating as much memory. Actually, using a looped thread in this case would eat much more memory than a timer.

(07-30-2013, 06:52 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:49 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:14 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:06 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 12:51 PM)Eternity Wrote: Setup a thread instead of using a timer.

A constantly running thread to update data at a regular interval would actually use more memory than a timer would. It is what timers were designed to do; update data at regular intervals. Whereas threading was designed to allow asynchronous code execution. Timers are perfectly fine when used correctly and actually better than threads in some instances.

Better to not use a control when you can do the same thing without one.

That logic is so flawed.. You are completely avoiding a control that was designed to do the exact thing you want to do, without eating as much memory. Actually, using a looped thread in this case would eat much more memory than a timer.

You can organize threads compared to timers.
Also timers as eat more CPU power than threads.(By my experience.)

(07-30-2013, 06:58 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:52 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:49 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:14 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:06 PM)Sempiternal Wrote: A constantly running thread to update data at a regular interval would actually use more memory than a timer would. It is what timers were designed to do; update data at regular intervals. Whereas threading was designed to allow asynchronous code execution. Timers are perfectly fine when used correctly and actually better than threads in some instances.

Better to not use a control when you can do the same thing without one.

That logic is so flawed.. You are completely avoiding a control that was designed to do the exact thing you want to do, without eating as much memory. Actually, using a looped thread in this case would eat much more memory than a timer.

You can organize threads compared to timers.
Also timers as eat more CPU power than threads.(By my experience.)

It depends on what you're using each one for. The timer, when used correctly, is much more efficient than a thread when it is used the same way.

(07-30-2013, 07:00 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:58 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:52 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:49 PM)Sempiternal Wrote:

(07-30-2013, 06:14 PM)Eternity Wrote: Better to not use a control when you can do the same thing without one.

That logic is so flawed.. You are completely avoiding a control that was designed to do the exact thing you want to do, without eating as much memory. Actually, using a looped thread in this case would eat much more memory than a timer.

You can organize threads compared to timers.
Also timers as eat more CPU power than threads.(By my experience.)

It depends on what you're using each one for. The timer, when used correctly, is much more efficient than a thread when it is used the same way.

Hmm, you might be right.
I only use timers for debugging.

(08-02-2013, 05:34 PM)Blackbone Wrote: lol this is so simple this is webbased u just add the webbrowser and get name values of each php page..

(08-02-2013, 05:42 PM)Eternity Wrote:

(08-02-2013, 05:34 PM)Blackbone Wrote: lol this is so simple this is webbased u just add the webbrowser and get name values of each php page..

Never go full retard.