jeena/en.javascript.info
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update article.md

Browse source 
"to react on other user actions" -> "to react to other user actions"  (a little more natural sounding)
This commit is contained in:
Peter Roche 2020-02-13 20:41:51 -07:00 • committed by GitHub
parent 0b2cbf947b
commit 1dd5e0681c
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
2-ui/99-ui-misc/03-event-loop/article.md
View file

@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ A single run of `count` does a part of the job `(*)`, and then re-schedules itse
2. Second run counts: `i=1000001..2000000`.
3. ...and so on.
Now, if a new side task (e.g. `onclick` event) appears while the engine is busy executing part 1, it gets queued and then executes when part 1 finished, before the next part. Periodic returns to the event loop between `count` executions provide just enough "air" for the JavaScript engine to do something else, to react on other user actions.
Now, if a new side task (e.g. `onclick` event) appears while the engine is busy executing part 1, it gets queued and then executes when part 1 finished, before the next part. Periodic returns to the event loop between `count` executions provide just enough "air" for the JavaScript engine to do something else, to react to other user actions.
The notable thing is that both variants -- with and without splitting the job by `setTimeout` -- are comparable in speed. There's not much difference in the overall counting time.