1. With or Without Eu....
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C0639D.946D9A00
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I tried QBasic,....................never again. Anyways, I'd like to =
clear this up. All the include files that come with Euphoria Don't take =
up room. Right? Like graphics and image........etc.
-Thomas
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C0639D.946D9A00
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> I tried=20
QBasic,....................never again. Anyways, I'd like to clear this =
up. All=20
the include files that come with Euphoria Don't take up room. =
Right? Like=20
graphics and image........etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01C0639D.946D9A00--
2. Re: With or Without Eu....
Thomas:
If what you meant by "don't take up room" was "does the line count in this
include contribute to the 300 line limit on error messages or not", then
look at the includes you're concerned with; if the last lines in them look
*something* like this:
-- This file (unless modified) counts as 0 statements.
with 63010154 -- delete this statement if it causes an error
then that include doesn't count toward the 300 line error limit for
non-registered versions of Euphoria.
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Kerslake" <paulk at UNISERVE.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 6:10 PM
Subject: With or Without Eu....
I tried QBasic,....................never again. Anyways, I'd like to
clear this up. All the include files that come with Euphoria Don't take up
room. Right? Like graphics and image........etc.
-Thomas
3. Re: With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Ray Smith <smithr at IX.NET.AU>
Dec 11, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 12, 2000
Hi Thomas,
As with Dan, I'm not quiet sure what your asking.
If you mean do the incldue files increase the size of your program ... then
If you want to distribute your program to other people who DO have Euphoria
you don't need to include the include files, you can just send them your
Euphoria program plus any files it uses that don't come with Euphoria.
If you want to distribute programs to people who DON'T have Euphoria you
need to include all the include files that your program uses
(this happens auomatically with the bind feature in the registered version).
If you look at the file sizes of all the standard include files this
overhead shouldn't worry you ~85KB (if you used them all)
Hope I (or Dan) have answered your question.
Ray Smith
>
> I tried QBasic,....................never again. Anyways, I'd like to
>clear this up. All the include files that come with Euphoria Don't take up
>room. Right? Like graphics and image........etc.
>
>-Thomas
4. With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Lutz Heitmann <Lutz_Heitmann at NF.MAUS.DE>
Dec 15, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 16, 2000
Kommentar zu P19530@KI in der Gruppe EUPHORIA
Hello Ray,
RS>If you mean do the include files increase the size of your program
I think it's more like this (at least that's my question): Does it do any harm
to always include all *.e-files? Would it slow execution down? Might take some
milliseconds more to compile, but you would never have to think about the
exact location of each routine.
I'm a Euphoria newbie from Germany. I discovered Euphoria by accident about 3
weeks ago: On www.simtel.net I tried to find useful DOS programs. I asked the
search engine for "lisp", and strangely (but luckily!) it found Euphoria for
me. :)
I know other languages like BASIC (of course), LISP (one of my favourites!),
Forth (from HP calculators), Pascal, and some other stuff - ever tried to draw
the square root of a binary number with a Turing simulator? I did that years
ago, but I've forgotten how...
My great obsession though is assembly language! There are so many users of
Windows of all kinds (95, 98, 2000, NT, ME), and as a computer technician I
have to (and do) know more than the average user. But I'm an old DOS user and
I still don't like windows, except to look out of! ;)
So Euphoria and Pete Eberlein's assembler are just right for me, except that
I'm still trying to figure out the basics of everything.
So my second question is (after the inclusion of all includes): How much stack
space is there upon entering assembly routines?
There's a project, I've worked on for years: Speed Optimization of "Conway's
LIFE" in display mode 19. Every few years I've sped the thing up with a new
idea. My last "new idea" is over 3 years old, and it got me a factor of 2 to
1000 (depending on population) - no kidding: I never saw any faster LIFE than
mine!
Anyone can have my ASM source code and .COM-file - just ask me for it. Right
now I'm planning to double(?) the speed again by using Euphoria and "real" 386
instructions - anyone interested in helping me with machine level routines?
Sorry for the long mail. Most of you don't know "LIFE" but I will explain that
later.
Lutz.
5. Re: With or Without Eu....
Hi Lutz,
> I think it's more like this (at least that's my question): Does it do any
harm
> to always include all *.e-files? Would it slow execution down? Might take
some
> milliseconds more to compile, but you would never have to think about the
> exact location of each routine.
I guess it would slow down the time it takes an application to start,
but I don't think it would be noticable.
I consider it (and I would think most would) consider it a bad technique
to include files your not using.
> So my second question is (after the inclusion of all includes): How much
stack
> space is there upon entering assembly routines?
I don't know the answer to your question (actually I'm not really
sure about the question!!!) but I beleive Euphoria has access to the
full resources of the operating system. Meaning .. if Euphoria keeps
asking for memory the OS will keep giving until it starts to cache
on your HDD and slow down.
Ray Smith
6. Re: With or Without Eu....
Lutz Heitmann writes:
> How much stack space is there upon entering
> assembly routines?
In DOS, the Euphoria interpreter is built with
the stack space set to 24K. This does not limit
Euphoria programs, since the call stack for
Euphoria subroutines grows automatically using
heap space. It would limit assembly language
programs that try to do deep recursion.
If you build your program using the Euphoria to C
Translator, you can set the stack space to whatever
you like on the linker command line.
In Linux and Windows I believe the O/S will
grow the stack automatically.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
7. Re: With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Euman <euman at BELLSOUTH.NET>
Dec 17, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 18, 2000
> What about the other issue: Will it slow execution
> down to include unused include files?
>
> Lutz.
Yes, The interpreter version of Euphoria is single pass
and reads everything.
The only significant degredation is the initial loading of the program.
euman at bellsouth.net
I may be told different but, in test I've performed this is the case.
8. Re: With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RAPIDEUPHORIA.COM>
Dec 17, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 18, 2000
Lutz writes:
> Will it slow execution
> down to include unused include files?
No it won't.
With the interpreter, the initial start-up might be a
fraction of a second longer, but I doubt that you would
notice the difference. The extra includes will however waste
some memory.
As a matter of style, I think it's better not to include files
that you aren't using.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
9. With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Lutz Heitmann <Lutz_Heitmann at NF.MAUS.DE>
Dec 18, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 19, 2000
-P23044@KI
Hallo Robert,
RC>As a matter of style, I think it's better not to include files that you
RC>aren't using.
I'm quite conscious of that! I just wanted to make sure, it wouldn't slow
things down after initialization.
To be honest: Euphoria looks great to me, but I want to use it mainly for
assembly language - for my implementation of "Conway's Life", fastest on
Earth... :)
Lutz.
10. Re: With or Without Eu....
Hi Lutz,
>To be honest: Euphoria looks great to me, but I want to use it mainly for
>assembly language - for my implementation of "Conway's Life", fastest on
>Earth... :)
In that case, you might like to look at
http://www.pbq.com.au/home/hutch/masm.htm
instead.
-----
cheers,
Derek Parnell
11. With or Without Eu....
- Posted by Lutz Heitmann <Lutz_Heitmann at NF.MAUS.DE>
Dec 16, 2000
-
Last edited Dec 17, 2000
-P22305@KI
Hello Robert,
RC>In DOS, the Euphoria interpreter is built with
RC>the stack space set to 24K.
Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
What about the other issue: Will it slow execution
down to include unused include files?
Lutz.
