I think a lot of us starting out, think of a sequence like a “splitter” of sorts. But its not a splitter, its a sequence. Its in order.
So if your need is just to add like one node or a few nodes, and the main line of code where that sequence is located is like two dozen or so nodes. Would it not be more correct then to place the one or few nodes (that you added the sequence for in the first place) off of pin one as to hurry and execute their code and then get back to the main line of a dozen or so nodes?
I mean I guess at the end of the day, considering this stuff is going in micro and milliseconds speed it probably doesn’t matter much anyway. But in terms of doing it efficiently and correctly, would it matter then? I just see so many tutorial videos out there that seem to pay it no mind when perhaps they should suggest once in awhile to those learning and watching, to pay more attention to it.
From what I understand - and happy to be corrected - is that the Sequence node is identical to a regular execution flow. It will wait until pin one has been executed before moving to the next pin.
The only time this isn’t true is with what they call latent functions; delays, etc. It allows you to run a delay on one pin, and then continue to execute something after it.
So for those reasons, the only use of split appears to be:
Allows the use of latent execution without delaying other execution after the node
Personal preference - how you like to lay out your node graph
You’re correct in saying you can group slow and fast node groups together to execute them in a specific order. But you can also do that without the Sequence node by putting the slow/fast group before/after the other one normally. So there’s no actual gain there.
Under the hood I don’t know what the cost of the Sequence node is, but if it actually matters, you should probably write that one in C++, not the node graph.