Re: Re: Limitations of standard C, formal interfaces, and other musings. Was: ms-level timings

[Ben Sunshine-Hill <sneftel@...>]

The "accurate timer" thing is surprisingly uncommon. In Windows,
there's 3 or 4 ways to do it, all with drawbacks and/or limited
support.

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:52:16 -0400, Brian Hook <hook_l@bookofhook.com> wrote:
> > Core Lua provides no more than can be done with the standard C
> > libraries. One reference I use for standard C (there might be
> > better ones) is here: http://www-ccs.ucsd.edu/c/index.html
> 
> I think this is an important point, and a good point for Lua in
> general -- it doesn't try to hide operating system details from you,
> it's simply a language on top.  That it isn't littered with #ifdef
> _WIN32 statements (unlike many other open source projects) is a good
> thing.
> 
> Some areas are far too ambitious to roll into a standard
> distributions: graphical interfaces, a math library, a native threads
> library, high quality audio, file/directory handling, signal handling,
> etc.
> 
> That said, there are certain concepts that are common across a huge
> range of platforms that could easily be encapsulated in a single file
> and would likely benefit a lot of users.  The obvious ones are a ms
> accurate timer (when available), sleep, and maybe a handful of others.
> 
> Brian
> 
>