1. To Robert: Memory problems
I had noticed this one problem from the very day I started running big Eu
programs: They waste space and slow down the machine for some inexplicable
reason. Why? The Eu docs say that EX will take full advantage of my extended
memory. I tried to run my program CRYPT on Intel's 386 documentation. EX
stopped cold telling me it was out of memory when I had AT LEAST 15 megs of
RAM left. And that was only the half of it...my HD space had been reduced
from a healthy 79 megs to <B>68 megs</B>. What's up with that?
P.S. It finally ran after I tried it in EXW, but it was still just as slow
2. Re: To Robert: Memory problems
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darth Maul, aka Matt" <uglyfish87 at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 12:54 PM
Subject: To Robert: Memory problems
> I had noticed this one problem from the very day I started running big Eu
> programs: They waste space and slow down the machine for some inexplicable
> reason. Why?
*Sigh* Because Eu is an *interpreted* language. Interpreted languages will
be slower, cause the command "puts" must be *interpreted* for the OS each
time it's seen in the code. And it's rather LISPy, meaning it has a lot of
tags and internal relational stuff for each character it stores.
>The Eu docs say that EX will take full advantage of my extended
> memory. I tried to run my program CRYPT on Intel's 386 documentation. EX
> stopped cold telling me it was out of memory when I had AT LEAST 15 megs
of
> RAM left. And that was only the half of it...my HD space had been reduced
> from a healthy 79 megs to <B>68 megs</B>. What's up with that?
What does it mean: "run my program CRYPT on Intel's 386 documentation." ?
You were encrypting the documents? How much ram are you talking about? What
size document?
Since when is 79Megs of free space on a hard drive "healthy"? 1995? Any
drive made in the early 90's is prolly well past it's MTBF, and should be
replaced. You can get new 6.4Gig hds for under $100USD: >
> P.S. It finally ran after I tried it in EXW, but it was still just as slow
*Anything* run in windoze will be slower than dos. Windoze has a huge
overhead all to itself, that overhead beats the alledged slowness of a 16bit
OS every time. (And windoze still has 16bit code running internally.)
Kat
3. Re: To Robert: Memory problems
actually, my prog just slurps up an 878K file and XORs it. no puts's
involved
4. Re: To Robert: Memory problems
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darth Maul, aka Matt" <uglyfish87 at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: To Robert: Memory problems
> actually, my prog just slurps up an 878K file and XORs it. no puts's
> involved
I used puts as an example. *every* word must be interpreted, there is no
*3byte* cpu command to xor anything. You still didn't say how much memory
your puter has. For a 878K file, Eu would need a little over 3.5Megs to
store it in memory as a sequence, much less if you use a peek/poke scheme.
If you read/write a byte at a time, you could do the whole file without
loading it into memory, but that will *really* be slow.
Kat
5. Re: To Robert: Memory problems
Well, at the time I had about 14 or 15 megs of RAM left
