1. Re: Web Access? ++ speed freaks
[web access]
> Is there anyone on this list who has no, or expensive, web access?
> Specifically, is there any need for e-mail access to Euphoria archives?
> (program archives - not the listserver messages)
In England we have to pay for local phone calls, and my machine is a 386, so
web access is very slow, even with images turned off, it takes a number of
seconds to render a page and scrolling sends you to sleep.
> If there is significant need, maybe I could build a mail-bot to
> return lists and files.
If you could manage to figure out a simple interface (very tough) then this
would be fantastic. Keep us posted on the proceedings
[Speed freaks and length()]
I ran a benchmark, to prove that use of length() caused significant overhead.
To make it fair, I did a typical usage, with a slice. The results shocked me.
With the defaults tick_rate there was no measurable difference between
length() and leng up to 10000 repetitions. I had to do 100000 before I got a
.39 second difference on my 386-25. The program is below
"Temptation will always be there, the opportunity won't" - Les Mailles
Daniel
begin test
file--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
--efficiency of length() in typical usage tester
constant repetitions=100000 --number of times to repeat the lookup
sequence junk,garbage,lookup
atom now
integer leng
junk=repeat("0z;",300)
--initialise test values
lookup={}
for a=1 to repetitions do
lookup = lookup & rand(300)
end for
--test 1
--set clock
now=time()
leng=length(junk) --pre-calculate length
for a=1 to repetitions do
--do a slice, and don't let it make a pointer
garbage=junk[lookup[a]..leng]&1
end for
? time()-now
--test 2
--set clock
now=time()
--do not pre-calculate length
for a=1 to repetitions do
--do a slice, and don't let it make a pointer
garbage=junk[lookup[a]..length(junk)]&1
end for
? time()-now
