1. Is this a joke?
I just get out of the hospital after having had my third cardiac arrest
(polonged arithmic depression, it stops for about 1 minute and then starts
beating again, it's a stress thing), and come here to see what's shaking.
Wha?
A Translator for DJGPP too now?
let's test it...
WTF????
OK last time when I said that my translated programs ran SLOWER than the
interpretted versions, I had the excuse of my Watcom version being Warezed and
not the real thing, but now with DJGPP, wich has worked perfect for YEARS, IT'S
STILL SLOWER!
What the hell is going onhere?
sequence.ex, shell.ex, sieve.ex, etc are all SLOWER once translated to C! About
10 TIMES SLOWER! WTF?
Is this a goddamn joke?
The slowness is visible, too.
Things take longer to complete, the respoonse is slower, etc. So it's not just
time() fucking up somehow (BTW ec.exe for DJGPP misses time.c or doesn't write it
out to disk). Wha?
Get the fuck outa here!
Mike The Spike
PS. Just had to get this off my chest (wich is realy hurting right now). I'm
back to resting, it ain't fun dying 3 times in your life...
*********************************************
Want free email? Sign up at http://www.freeze.com !
2. Re: Is this a joke?
- Posted by Euman <euman at BELLSOUTH.NET>
Oct 04, 2000
-
Last edited Oct 05, 2000
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C02E46.E63E39C0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with Matt that seive is right on the mark.
However, some of the sequence operations
in sequence.ex (in the DEMO'S) were (slightly) slower,=20
after all this is an ALPHA release...
If we all do our part to help Robert out where we can,
by actually testing and giveing him feed back on things.
(Like bugs and forget about the speed for now)
This already impressive Euphoria Language will be better.
I'm sure if Robert says he'll
check on something,=20
Fix something,
or ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING. =20
"it has been my observation in the last 2 yrs. that it'll get done"
Thanks Robert
BTW, I got E-Mail from the OPENWatcom Folks.
"They say it'll probably be sometime the middle of next
year before un-registered users of Watcom can expect
to see any files....but, cant promise, and that we should=20
expect to wait as long as a year."=20
I hope that my patients doesnt run out......hehe
Right-on DJGPP and LCC-Win32 (Robert!)
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C02E46.E63E39C0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I agree with Matt that seive is right =
on the=20
mark.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>However, some of the sequence=20
operations</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>in sequence.ex (in the DEMO'S) were =
(slightly)=20
slower, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>after all this is an </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>ALPHA release...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> If we all do our part =
</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>to help Robert out where we can,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> by actually testing </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>and giveing him feed back on things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(Like bugs and forget about the speed =
for=20
now)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This already impressive Euphoria =
Language will be=20
better.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm sure if Robert says =
he'll</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> check on=20
something, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Fix=20
something,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> or =
ACTUALLY PRODUCE=20
SOMETHING.</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"it has been </FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>my=20
observation in the last 2 yrs. that it'll get done"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks Robert</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>BTW, I got E-Mail from the OPENWatcom=20
Folks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
"They say it'll probably be sometime the middle of next</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
year before un-registered users of Watcom can expect</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
to see any files....but, cant promise, and that we should =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
expect </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>to wait as long as a =
year."=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I hope that my patients doesnt run=20
out......hehe</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Right-on DJGPP and LCC-Win32=20
------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C02E46.E63E39C0--
3. Re: Is this a joke?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike The Spike
>
<snip>
> A Translator for DJGPP too now?
> let's test it...
> WTF????
>
> OK last time when I said that my translated programs ran
> SLOWER than the interpretted versions, I had the excuse of my
> Watcom version being Warezed and not the real thing, but now
> with DJGPP, wich has worked perfect for YEARS, IT'S STILL SLOWER!
> What the hell is going onhere?
> sequence.ex, shell.ex, sieve.ex, etc are all SLOWER once
> translated to C! About 10 TIMES SLOWER! WTF?
> Is this a goddamn joke?
> The slowness is visible, too.
> Things take longer to complete, the respoonse is slower, etc.
> So it's not just time() fucking up somehow (BTW ec.exe for
> DJGPP misses time.c or doesn't write it out to disk). Wha?
I ran sieve.ex, and it was about 3X faster after being compiled
(coincidentally, this is about what Rob was reporting--imagine that, a
software company that actually delivers on its promises :):
Compiled: 12203/sec
Interpreted: 4353/sec
Ratio: 2.8
I also tested my Matheval library, and it was over 10X faster for some ops
(eg, calculating (x+1)^32). So I'd guess that either your version of DJGPP
is out of date, or you didn't actually run anything. Let's see your source
code for DJGPP for sieve (or any of the other benchmark programs included
with Eu), and then we can compare the mythical U4IA++.
In short, I'm very impressed. I look forward to the Win32 version, and
putting up my $29.
Has anyone tried compiling anything that uses Neil? I assume this should
work, since it doesn't use Eu's built in graphics, right (not sure, since
I've never used it)?
Matt Lewis
4. Re: Is this a joke?
Euman writes:
> However, some of the sequence operations
> in sequence.ex (in the DEMO'S) were (slightly) slower,
> after all this is an ALPHA release...
Some of those sequence operations make intensive use
of run-time routines, e.g. find(), which aren't made any
faster by compiling. Also, I get the feeling that WATCOM C
generates slightly faster code than DJGPP. That would make
the run-time routines in ec.a a bit slower than those in ec.lib or
the interpreter. I find that sieve.ex and shell.ex are both
a bit faster with WATCOM.
Mike The Spike writes:
> sequence.ex, shell.ex, sieve.ex, etc are all SLOWER once
> translated to C! About 10 TIMES SLOWER! WTF?
That's strange. Maybe you have a very old version of
DJGPP, or maybe you are linking in debug versions of libc
or something. Or maybe it's similar to the WATCOM
factor of 10 problem with time(). If you figure out
anything, let me know - but take care of your health first.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
5. Re: Is this a joke?
Robert Craig wrote:
> Some of those sequence operations make intensive use
> of run-time routines, e.g. find(), which aren't made any
> faster by compiling. Also, I get the feeling that WATCOM C
> generates slightly faster code than DJGPP. That would make
> the run-time routines in ec.a a bit slower than those in ec.lib or
> the interpreter. I find that sieve.ex and shell.ex are both
> a bit faster with WATCOM.
>
I guess that makes some sense. The sequence routines are the real dogs of
the benchmark comparison. Here is what I've found (for some surrealism, I
ran the benchmarks with David Cuny's eu emulator--eu.ex--both interpreted
and compiled):
(you'll want a fixed width font to view this)
.ex .exe eu.ex
eu.exe
database 346800 498800 2932 10567
shell 8099.7 34513.3 16.5 60.3
sequence init 504133 516400 24983 98666
sequence add 163654 124266 25315 65600
sequence append 6327242 4598333 8245 11294
sequence slice 1885382 3669060 5258 7844
sequence look-up 283588 286400 20199 36266
sieve 5160 14543 11.3 36.3
average performance ratios (left:top)
.ex .exe eu.ex eu.exe
.ex 0.81 279.06 140.66
.exe 1.75 605.51 238.77
eu.ex 0.04 0.04 0.43
eu.exe 0.10 0.11 2.71
Matt Lewis
6. Re: Is this a joke?
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:42:14 -0700, Matthew Lewis <MatthewL at KAPCOUSA.COM>
wrote:
>Has anyone tried compiling anything that uses Neil? I assume this should
>work, since it doesn't use Eu's built in graphics, right (not sure, since
>I've never used it)?
>
>Matt Lewis
I tried compiling pacer.ex with DJGPP last night. I had to modify neil.e
to get rid of machine(41,...) (aka lock_memory) not being implemented. The
program compiled, but it crashed with an exception when I tried to run the
exe. I think I might have some Causeway-specific code for the real-mode
calling stuff in neil, I'll try and track it down. Never really thought
about not having Causeway around, sort-of never expected Rob to release a
translator for other compilers.. but I'm glad he did.
Pete
