1. "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Jul 03, 2004
- 504 views
At the suggestion that I implement a test system to show how effective the "of" type can be, I have done so.... Run benchmarks.ex to see how it performs on your machine. To change the number of iterations, change constants.e. "of" is at least 20 times faster at 10,000 records. Everyone, what do you think? See test_of.ex for example. -- MrTrick
2. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Jul 03, 2004
- 503 views
Sorry... the attachment was stripped out. It can be found here: http://users.secsme.org.au/~prbarnes/misc/oth/of.zip RobC, any comments? On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:22:10 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> wrote: > > > At the suggestion that I implement a test system to show how effective > the "of" type can be, I have done so.... > > Run benchmarks.ex to see how it performs on your machine. > To change the number of iterations, change constants.e. > > "of" is at least 20 times faster at 10,000 records. > > Everyone, what do you think? See test_of.ex for example. > -- > MrTrick > > > > -- MrTrick
3. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jul 03, 2004
- 477 views
Patrick Barnes wrote: > > Sorry... the attachment was stripped out. > It can be found here: <a > href="http://users.secsme.org.au/~prbarnes/misc/oth/of.zip">http://users.secsme.org.au/~prbarnes/misc/oth/of.zip</a> > RobC, any comments? > > On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:22:10 +1000, Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > At the suggestion that I implement a test system to show how effective > > the "of" type can be, I have done so.... > > > > Run benchmarks.ex to see how it performs on your machine. > > To change the number of iterations, change constants.e. > > > > "of" is at least 20 times faster at 10,000 records. > > > > Everyone, what do you think? See test_of.ex for example. > > -- > > MrTrick Thanks, I downloaded the zip and took a quick look at it. I have no technical problems with implementing something like this. As I said, I studied this in great detail a few years ago. It's a logical and elegant extension to the language. I would not restrict it to one-level of slice or force the new syntax to appear only within a type declaration. e.g. I would allow an infinite number of levels: sequence of sequence of ... <type> x Of course people will naturally demand a way to declare structures and add them to the type system. e.g. sequence of mystruct x I don't need a benchmark to show me that type checking one (subscript) or a few (slice) elements will be much faster than checking the whole sequence. The only thing holding me back is that I doubt many people would use this, and those that would use it would not benefit greatly from it. I can't see many people bothering to say: sequence of sequence of integer s when they can just say sequence s I've found that most people are more interested in how few keystrokes they can type to get the job done, than they are with adding extra type-checking, especially with all the run-time checking that Euphoria already has. Beginners would have to read a big new section of the manual describing all these wonderful types that they can create. They would falsely conclude that this was an essential part of the language, without which you can't do anything, just like C++ or most other statically-typed languages. In Euphoria, types are for documentation and debugging. Period. They are not used to construct data structures, like in most other languages. Thus they are not central to the language, like they are in most other languages. I wouldn't want to add a lot of fancy extensions to something that isn't very important. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
4. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at pandora.be> Jul 03, 2004
- 456 views
I'll have to agree with Robert. In other languages, types are necessary. In Euphoria, they aren't. Us advanced programmers () know what it's all about, but beginners don't know what's important and what not. Remember one of the motto's of Euphoria: 'Easier to learn than BASIC'. Adding extra stuff that's not really necessary makes Euphoria less easy to learn. What does a beginner really have to learn about types in Euphoria: atoms and sequences. Keep It Simple, Sydney. Robert Craig wrote: > Thanks, I downloaded the zip and took a quick look at it. > I have no technical problems with implementing > something like this. As I said, I studied this in great detail > a few years ago. It's a logical and elegant extension to > the language. I would not restrict it to one-level of slice or > force the new syntax to appear only within a type declaration. > e.g. I would allow an infinite number of levels: > sequence of sequence of ... <type> x > > Of course people will naturally demand a way to declare structures > and add them to the type system. e.g. sequence of mystruct x > > I don't need a benchmark to show me that type checking one (subscript) > or a few (slice) elements will be much faster than checking > the whole sequence. > > The only thing holding me back is that I doubt many people > would use this, and those that would use it would not benefit > greatly from it. I can't see many people bothering to say: > > sequence of sequence of integer s > > when they can just say > > sequence s > > I've found that most people are more interested in how few keystrokes > they can type to get the job done, than they are with adding > extra type-checking, especially with all the run-time checking > that Euphoria already has. > > Beginners would have to read a big new section of the manual > describing all these wonderful types that they can create. > They would falsely conclude that this was an essential > part of the language, without which you can't do anything, > just like C++ or most other statically-typed languages. > > In Euphoria, types are for documentation and debugging. Period. > They are not used to construct data structures, like in most > other languages. Thus they are not central to the language, > like they are in most other languages. I wouldn't want to > add a lot of fancy extensions to something that isn't very important. -- tommy online: http://users.pandora.be/tommycarlier Euphoria Message Board: http://uboard.proboards32.com
5. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by irv mullins <irvm at ellijay.com> Jul 03, 2004
- 504 views
Tommy Carlier wrote: > > I'll have to agree with Robert. In other languages, types are necessary. In > Euphoria, > they aren't. Us advanced programmers () know what it's all about, but > beginners > don't know what's important and what not. > Remember one of the motto's of Euphoria: 'Easier to learn than BASIC'. Adding > extra > stuff that's not really necessary makes Euphoria less easy to learn. > What does a beginner really have to learn about types in Euphoria: atoms and > sequences. > Keep It Simple, Sydney. Just exactly what is simple about the obscure errors you get when trying to do things (like printing) which are easy in other languages? How does that make Eu "easier" for the beginner? This topic has been discussed to death here, and there isn't ever going to be any change. Those who aren't willing to cope with the idiosyncracies of Eu eventually move on. As do beginners who hit one to many stumbling blocks. Irv
6. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Patrick Barnes <mrtrick at gmail.com> Jul 04, 2004
- 491 views
> posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> > Thanks, I downloaded the zip and took a quick look at it. > I have no technical problems with implementing > something like this. As I said, I studied this in great detail > a few years ago. It's a logical and elegant extension to > the language. I would not restrict it to one-level of slice or > force the new syntax to appear only within a type declaration. > e.g. I would allow an infinite number of levels: > sequence of sequence of ... <type> x > > Of course people will naturally demand a way to declare structures > and add them to the type system. e.g. sequence of mystruct x Which is not mutually exclusive with the "of" system. > I don't need a benchmark to show me that type checking one (subscript) > or a few (slice) elements will be much faster than checking > the whole sequence. > > The only thing holding me back is that I doubt many people > would use this, and those that would use it would not benefit > greatly from it. I can't see many people bothering to say: > > sequence of sequence of integer s > > when they can just say > > sequence s > > I've found that most people are more interested in how few keystrokes > they can type to get the job done, than they are with adding > extra type-checking, especially with all the run-time checking > that Euphoria already has. I can type ~ 50wpm. I'm more interested in knowing where a bug in my program occured, something that is a *lot* easier to do with speedy yet comprehensive type definition. > Beginners would have to read a big new section of the manual > describing all these wonderful types that they can create. > They would falsely conclude that this was an essential > part of the language, without which you can't do anything, > just like C++ or most other statically-typed languages. I think not... Even using the fancy "of" type system, the benchmark is much faster with no type checking whatsoever. I don't think that this would be used (or would simply be turned off) for production code. The key is, that this is a wonderful testing tool. Put this in the testing/debugging section, and it would not be seen as such an essential thing. > In Euphoria, types are for documentation and debugging. Period. > They are not used to construct data structures, like in most > other languages. Thus they are not central to the language, > like they are in most other languages. I wouldn't want to > add a lot of fancy extensions to something that isn't very important. "not very important".... Your super-duper flexible sequences *are* cool, and one can do pretty much anything with them. However, in all non-trivial programs, there are one or two (or more) *large* variables that have a structure very rigidly defined by all the routines that use them. Sometimes we want flexibility, sometimes we want to enforce structure on our own code, so that if it misbehaves and changes something, we'll know about it right away. It is significant. -- MrTrick
7. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com> Jul 04, 2004
- 479 views
Someone wrote: >sequence of sequence of integer s I doubt i would use that exact line anywhere, but i would DEFINATELY use this: sequence of char which would limit ANY element in this sequence to a whole number between 0 and 255, or hex #00 to #FF. I'd welcome this in a heartbeat, because from then on i'd be able to store text in single bytes with the same ease that i store anything else (usually) when using Euphoria. Presently, for every character stored there are four bytes used. On the other hand, if it was going to slow storing and retrieving down too much i would not like this I think as a min i would look for not less then 0.5 times the speed it is now, although it really is app dependent. Take care, Al And, good luck with your Euphoria programming! My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
8. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jul 04, 2004
- 473 views
Al Getz wrote: > > Someone wrote: > > >sequence of sequence of integer s > > I doubt i would use that exact line anywhere, but i would > DEFINATELY use this: > > sequence of char > > which would limit ANY element in this sequence to > a whole number between 0 and 255, or hex #00 to #FF. > > I'd welcome this in a heartbeat, because from then on > i'd be able to store text in single bytes with the same > ease that i store anything else (usually) when using > Euphoria. Presently, for every character stored there > are four bytes used. Unfortunately, I would still want to store your chars in 4 bytes. The main reason I don't store chars in one byte now is because I'd have to create a new *internal* data type that would make the interpreter much bigger, buggier, slower, and harder to maintain. Regards, Rob Craig Rapid Deployment Software http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
9. Re: "OF" in types, yet again...
- Posted by "Kat" <gertie at visionsix.com> Jul 04, 2004
- 485 views
On 3 Jul 2004, at 19:41, Robert Craig wrote: > > > posted by: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> > > Al Getz wrote: > > > > Someone wrote: > > > > >sequence of sequence of integer s > > > > I doubt i would use that exact line anywhere, but i would > > DEFINATELY use this: > > > > sequence of char > > > > which would limit ANY element in this sequence to > > a whole number between 0 and 255, or hex #00 to #FF. > > > > I'd welcome this in a heartbeat, because from then on > > i'd be able to store text in single bytes with the same > > ease that i store anything else (usually) when using > > Euphoria. Presently, for every character stored there > > are four bytes used. > > Unfortunately, I would still want to store your > chars in 4 bytes. The main reason I don't store > chars in one byte now is because I'd have to > create a new *internal* data type that would > make the interpreter much bigger, buggier, > slower, and harder to maintain. What about being able to map chars or sequence or objects back onto allocated memory? Then Al could allocate some memory, point a sequential list of chars onto it, and then map a sequence onto it. Assuming, of course, when he assigns a value to the sequence, the char type checking is also performed (because the was value changed when the overlying sequence was changed). Kat