🚀 go-pugleaf

     A debate over multitasking crops up occasionally, with some
claiming it really has little use, while others insisting it is
essential for efficient use of a computer. One argument for mutitasking
is that it permits you to do something else on your computer while
waiting for it to compile code or recalculate a spreadsheet.  But
wouldn't it be far preferable to use a compiler or spreadsheet that is
fast enough that any wait is negligeable and your train of thought is
not broken.  Multi- tasking would only slow a slow program down and
break your thought even more. Turbo Pascal and Lightspeed C show that
sufficiently fast compilers, at least, are possible, even on not
especially fast machines.  And the success of these compilers suggests
that many people appreciate being able to test code out quickly in a
more interactive manner than possible with traditional compilers.   The
popularity of interpreted Basic and even the relatively modest interest
in Forth, in spite of the disadvantages of these languages, also
support the idea that people prefer to program inter- actively.  I
think it is even claimed in some quarters that interactive programming
is more efficient than batch programming, though I don't know if this
notion has been tested objectively.  It's true, of course, that you do
need to take breaks occasionally from coding, but I would rather choose
my own times rather than have them imposed by a slow compiler.
     Certainly it would be nice to be able to download or print files
     in the background, though personally I find printing on a noisy
dot matrix printer a good time to stretch my legs and leave the room,
but I thought these tasks were possible on almost any computer.  I once
had a DA called Multitasking Print (I think) which permitted printing
text files in the background while compiling (in Rascal). It always
worked without a hitch until a faulty disk drive destroyed my only
copy.  Whatever happened to that DA, by the way, I haven't seen it
around again.