1. www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM>
Jan 04, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 05, 2001
Damn!
After some benchmarks, written by yours truly zupahh
l33t hax0r coder, I found out Eu is slow
as...well...hell!
It takes it a 100 times longer to execute a simple
for-loop with an evaluation inside when compared to
the same code written in LCCWin.
But, however, once translated to C and compiled with
LCCWin, it's only 20 times slower on that subject.
I still can't believe why there's still "Almost As
Fast As Compiled C!" floating around here.
Sure, Eu is faster than QBasic, or a 1993 freeware
crap-ass Small C compiler or some shit. But can it
stand up tall against Vector C (Uses sequences BTW)
and VC++ 6.0? What about VC++ 7.0 when it is released?
What about COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, Direct X 8?
And then you wanna know why Microsoft don't write
their
OSes in Euphoria? Or why there's just "a few hundred"
customers in the entire world after 8 years of being
sold?
Don't get me wrong, Euphoria is an excellent language,
and features great memory handling for DOS.
But it just hurts me to see such and excellent, the
best, easiest, must flexible, and sexy language in the
world, with 25.000 lines of C code wasted to it, being
created by people that don't see a market when they
are publically decapitated in the middle of one.
That much effort the write Euphoria, that excllent a
language syntax, and that crap-assed out-dated slow
features. Yeah! Woohoo! You can display images up to
256 colors in size! At 1 FPS on an Intel IV 2Ghz! In
DOS only! YEAH! THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO WRITE THE NEXT
UNREAL TOURNAMENT!! Come on... Ya gotta do better than
that.. Spead up the interpreter a little... Translate
to Machine Code internally.. GET RID OF WATCOM FOR
CRYING OUT LOUD! THE CREATORS DID! Go get VC++ 6.0 to
compile Exw.exe. With full optimisations. Add DLL
compilation support. Add object file compilation
support (I personally designed the method to do this
interpreted). Hand-code the interpreter in Assembler
for all I care, but don't slap some new library
routines based on old ones but with an easier sytax
and call it all new version.
I'm here to do one thing; Make sure Eu gets what it
deserves.
I'm gonna be bitchin' and flamin' untill yall listen
to what I say.
I know Eu's flaws. Fix up that translator for example.
Run sequence.ex with the interpreter. Write down the
results. Now compile it with the translator. See what
I
mean? It's almost the same results, with the exeption
of the interpreter being FASTER in some procedures.
I thought you were going to write a translator to make
things faster, not slower. Sure here and there, for
loops and crap, the translator is faster. But how much
faster? You shouldn't be sattisfied untill C runs
SLOWER than Euphoria once compiled to C.
Use clever #ifdef constructs combined with calls to
call() in the source produced so you can optimise some
sections with machine code. Implement simple global
optimisation techniques into the interpreter and
translator. The following code:
for i = 1 to 487487878787 do
myvar = i
end for
Should NOT be ran. It should just be re-written to
"myvar = 487487878787" by the interpreter. Dead code
sections should be stripped out. Variables that are
never called should not be created. Cache-burst,
peephole, function call, evaluation, etc. optimising
should all be implemented. and blah blah blah.....
ah hell....
I'm getting tired bitchin' all day long....
I'm gonna go get some sleep..............
Mike The Spike
PS. Wha? GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS ROB AND START
WORKING!!.......NOW! hehe J/K :p
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
2. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
how can you expect from one person to do all that work?
that's why i think euphoria should be developed by more people. Only then it
could compete with microsoft's VC++,.... Till then i'm just gonna stick with
microsoft languages, when i wanna make reel programs.
Rob, i think you should hire someone to make a very good IDE for euphoria,
like visual basic has. it would attract a lot more people. Just think how
many people have given up when they saw that rough no mouse DOS ED editor. I
never used it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:45 AM
Subject: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
> Damn!
> After some benchmarks, written by yours truly zupahh
> l33t hax0r coder, I found out Eu is slow
> as...well...hell!
> It takes it a 100 times longer to execute a simple
> for-loop with an evaluation inside when compared to
> the same code written in LCCWin.
> But, however, once translated to C and compiled with
> LCCWin, it's only 20 times slower on that subject.
>
> I still can't believe why there's still "Almost As
> Fast As Compiled C!" floating around here.
> Sure, Eu is faster than QBasic, or a 1993 freeware
> crap-ass Small C compiler or some shit. But can it
> stand up tall against Vector C (Uses sequences BTW)
> and VC++ 6.0? What about VC++ 7.0 when it is released?
> What about COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, Direct X 8?
> And then you wanna know why Microsoft don't write
> their
> OSes in Euphoria? Or why there's just "a few hundred"
> customers in the entire world after 8 years of being
> sold?
> Don't get me wrong, Euphoria is an excellent language,
> and features great memory handling for DOS.
> But it just hurts me to see such and excellent, the
> best, easiest, must flexible, and sexy language in the
> world, with 25.000 lines of C code wasted to it, being
> created by people that don't see a market when they
> are publically decapitated in the middle of one.
> That much effort the write Euphoria, that excllent a
> language syntax, and that crap-assed out-dated slow
> features. Yeah! Woohoo! You can display images up to
> 256 colors in size! At 1 FPS on an Intel IV 2Ghz! In
> DOS only! YEAH! THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO WRITE THE NEXT
> UNREAL TOURNAMENT!! Come on... Ya gotta do better than
> that.. Spead up the interpreter a little... Translate
> to Machine Code internally.. GET RID OF WATCOM FOR
> CRYING OUT LOUD! THE CREATORS DID! Go get VC++ 6.0 to
> compile Exw.exe. With full optimisations. Add DLL
> compilation support. Add object file compilation
> support (I personally designed the method to do this
> interpreted). Hand-code the interpreter in Assembler
> for all I care, but don't slap some new library
> routines based on old ones but with an easier sytax
> and call it all new version.
>
> I'm here to do one thing; Make sure Eu gets what it
> deserves.
> I'm gonna be bitchin' and flamin' untill yall listen
> to what I say.
> I know Eu's flaws. Fix up that translator for example.
> Run sequence.ex with the interpreter. Write down the
> results. Now compile it with the translator. See what
> I
> mean? It's almost the same results, with the exeption
> of the interpreter being FASTER in some procedures.
> I thought you were going to write a translator to make
> things faster, not slower. Sure here and there, for
> loops and crap, the translator is faster. But how much
> faster? You shouldn't be sattisfied untill C runs
> SLOWER than Euphoria once compiled to C.
> Use clever #ifdef constructs combined with calls to
> call() in the source produced so you can optimise some
> sections with machine code. Implement simple global
> optimisation techniques into the interpreter and
> translator. The following code:
> for i = 1 to 487487878787 do
> myvar = i
> end for
> Should NOT be ran. It should just be re-written to
> "myvar = 487487878787" by the interpreter. Dead code
> sections should be stripped out. Variables that are
> never called should not be created. Cache-burst,
> peephole, function call, evaluation, etc. optimising
> should all be implemented. and blah blah blah.....
> ah hell....
> I'm getting tired bitchin' all day long....
>
>
>
> I'm gonna go get some sleep..............
>
> Mike The Spike
> PS. Wha? GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS ROB AND START
> WORKING!!.......NOW! hehe J/K :p
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
3. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On 2001.01.04 23:45:25 -0500 Jack Cat wrote:
> Damn!
> After some benchmarks, written by yours truly zupahh
> l33t hax0r coder, I found out Eu is slow
> as...well...hell!
> It takes it a 100 times longer to execute a simple
> for-loop with an evaluation inside when compared to
> the same code written in LCCWin.
What do you expect, comparing an optimized C
program to interpreted Euphoria?
> But, however, once translated to C and compiled with
> LCCWin, it's only 20 times slower on that subject.
Of course it's still slower compared to hand-written
code. I haven't tried the interpreter, but I gather
that there is a lot of features which your little
for-loop don't use, which slow down the code. If
you're going to use Euphoria, use the features and
stop complaining when your pointless code runs 20
times slower. If you really want to go through a loop
really fast, try writing something in assembly like so:
mov ecx, 0xFFFFFFFF
label:
loop label
> I still can't believe why there's still "Almost As
> Fast As Compiled C!" floating around here.
> Sure, Eu is faster than QBasic, or a 1993 freeware
> crap-ass Small C compiler or some shit. But can it
> stand up tall against Vector C (Uses sequences BTW)
> and VC++ 6.0? What about VC++ 7.0 when it is released?
> What about COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, Direct X 8?
> And then you wanna know why Microsoft don't write
> their
> OSes in Euphoria? Or why there's just "a few hundred"
> customers in the entire world after 8 years of being
> sold?
I don't think you even know what you are talking about.
COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, and DirectX have no effect
on performance the way you're measuring it. And obviously
Microsoft doesn't write their OSes in Euphoria! Euphoria
is not designed to have the low-level features that an
OS needs.
> Don't get me wrong, Euphoria is an excellent language,
> and features great memory handling for DOS.
> But it just hurts me to see such and excellent, the
> best, easiest, must flexible, and sexy language in the
> world, with 25.000 lines of C code wasted to it, being
> created by people that don't see a market when they
> are publically decapitated in the middle of one.
> That much effort the write Euphoria, that excllent a
> language syntax, and that crap-assed out-dated slow
> features. Yeah! Woohoo! You can display images up to
> 256 colors in size! At 1 FPS on an Intel IV 2Ghz! In
> DOS only! YEAH! THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO WRITE THE NEXT
> UNREAL TOURNAMENT!! Come on... Ya gotta do better than
> that.. Spead up the interpreter a little... Translate
> to Machine Code internally.. GET RID OF WATCOM FOR
> CRYING OUT LOUD! THE CREATORS DID! Go get VC++ 6.0 to
> compile Exw.exe. With full optimisations. Add DLL
> compilation support. Add object file compilation
> support (I personally designed the method to do this
> interpreted). Hand-code the interpreter in Assembler
> for all I care, but don't slap some new library
> routines based on old ones but with an easier sytax
> and call it all new version.
There are some things that C is just better for than
Euphoria... writing OSes and games like Quake 3 are two
of them. The high-performance 3D games/libraries out there
take advantage of hand written assembly using the SIMD
features of newer processors.
> I'm here to do one thing; Make sure Eu gets what it
> deserves.
> I'm gonna be bitchin' and flamin' untill yall listen
> to what I say.
> I know Eu's flaws. Fix up that translator for example.
> Run sequence.ex with the interpreter. Write down the
> results. Now compile it with the translator. See what
> I
> mean? It's almost the same results, with the exeption
> of the interpreter being FASTER in some procedures.
The reason there is little difference is obvious.
Most of the time on that benchmark is spent in the sequence
manipulation routines, which I bet are the same (or at least
very similar) between the interpreter and the translator,
and so the performance gain from compiling the loops is
not as noticible as it would be on a less artificial
benchmark. As for the interpreter being faster, since
the results are so close, you really need to run it
many times to proove anything.
> I thought you were going to write a translator to make
> things faster, not slower. Sure here and there, for
> loops and crap, the translator is faster. But how much
> faster? You shouldn't be sattisfied untill C runs
> SLOWER than Euphoria once compiled to C.
That is moronic. C will always be as fast or faster
than Euphoria code translated to C.
> Use clever #ifdef constructs combined with calls to
> call() in the source produced so you can optimise some
> sections with machine code. Implement simple global
> optimisation techniques into the interpreter and
> translator. The following code:
> for i = 1 to 487487878787 do
> myvar = i
> end for
> Should NOT be ran. It should just be re-written to
> "myvar = 487487878787" by the interpreter. Dead code
> sections should be stripped out. Variables that are
> never called should not be created. Cache-burst,
> peephole, function call, evaluation, etc. optimising
> should all be implemented. and blah blah blah.....
> ah hell....
Nobody in their right mind would write a loop like
that. If you're so worried about your sloppy code,
write your own optimizer.
> I'm getting tired bitchin' all day long....
Good. I'm getting tired of hearing it.
Jeff Fielding
4. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
> how can you expect from one person to do all that
> work?
> that's why i think euphoria should be developed by
> more people. Only then it
> could compete with microsoft's VC++,.... Till then
> i'm just gonna stick with
> microsoft languages, when i wanna make reel
> programs.
> Rob, i think you should hire someone to make a very
> good IDE for euphoria,
> like visual basic has. it would attract a lot more
> people. Just think how
> many people have given up when they saw that rough
> no mouse DOS ED editor. I
> never used it.
I totally agree Skoda.
Yeah it's hard do implement all that stuff if you're
just one coder. I offered to help RDS in exchange for
a free intepreter. But now that I got the interpreter,
I don't see why I should send out my U4IA++ code.
For one, I have an 80% working C To Euphoria
translator. And I have a C interpreter library wich
allows for the "import foo.h/foo.c" operator. So you
can import ANSI C source into Euphoria programs, and
with the translator, the advantage is even greater.
I also have a lib based on Stonewheel for loading COFF
and ELF files as Dynamic Link Libraries on all
platforms. Maybe I should officially join RDS. I'm a
fast and good coder. Infact, I might be able to work
at Nintendo of Japan again some time soon. As I speak
22 languages, it's pretty easy for me to integrate
into new environments. Plus, if I'd join RDS, a lot of
people would value the software even more, because I
would know about 5000 people that would buy something
just because I worked on it. No shit, I have
statements to back it up. Wouldn't you feel euphoric
if you knew MTS was coding on Eu? It beats getting
some crazy ass employee to help you out that can't
even code for shit. Rob should just try to find an
excellent C/C++/ASM coder that knows Euphoria aswell.
Canada is big but you won't find one, I'm sure.
I for one code for platforms you haven't even dreamt
about coding for. What about MIPS3000 (Playstation)
MIPS4000 (Nintendo 64) Nintendo Z80 (Gameboy(Color)),
and Emotion Engine (Playstation II, and I own the TooL
quadrupple processor dev system aswell). The first
thing I'd do would be to port Euphoria to all these
platforms, ASAP.
Hack here, hack there, strip here, add there, and it's
out the door for 100$ a pop, and I'll bet my last
dollar you will pay that amount right away, along with
THOUSANDS of official console developers that are
stuck with a single C compiler that costs 2000 dollars
and takes up too much time to code for. Not to mention
debugging. That's the way *I* work.
Why else you think L&H hired me at the age of SIXTEEN?
I used to be an official Whizzkid, meaning that I was
a child genius. I spoke 3 languages at the age of 6. I
am a marketing graduate and genius. Top of the class.
I whent to a university at L&H at the age of 16 and
graduated at the age of 18 as a C++ AI coder. I ran a
team of 35 people at the age of 19. I'm still 19 right
now. So I'm sure as hell I know how to code on
Euphoria.
Plus I'm cheap.
I code for fun.
I have strong work ethics and was hospitalised two
times for over-working. I take half a gram of pils
each day to keep me from flipping out because I work
too hard.
I'm an MCP, have an A+ degree, am an official Nintendo
developer and have contracts with 6 publishers for 4
platforms. I could kick Euphoria into the stores,
wrapped up and boxed within a month around the globe.
An IDE?
Don't make me laugh!
I know VB's IDE and I can top it within half an hour!!
Yes, HALF AN HOUR! Did you read that? Half an hour of
coding and I have set up an IDE for Euphoria that tops
VB's. I have the code to do it, and the training. I
have a first-class Euphoria(++) IDE with built-in web
browser for docs and an interface to 70 C compilers
for translation. With a multi-platform GUI creation
tool plus library. ActiveX control support, App
wizards that range from Text Editor to 3D Game
producers.
So I can't see why I couldn't join RDS.
Maybe I should discuss this through mail with Robert.
Mike The Spike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On 2001.01.05 17:35:28 -0500 Jack Cat wrote:
> > how can you expect from one person to do all that
> > work?
> > that's why i think euphoria should be developed by
> > more people. Only then it
> > could compete with microsoft's VC++,.... Till then
> > i'm just gonna stick with
> > microsoft languages, when i wanna make reel
> > programs.
> > Rob, i think you should hire someone to make a very
> > good IDE for euphoria,
> > like visual basic has. it would attract a lot more
> > people. Just think how
> > many people have given up when they saw that rough
> > no mouse DOS ED editor. I
> > never used it.
>
> I totally agree Skoda.
> Yeah it's hard do implement all that stuff if you're
> just one coder. I offered to help RDS in exchange for
> a free intepreter. But now that I got the interpreter,
> I don't see why I should send out my U4IA++ code.
<snip>
> As I speak 22 languages, it's pretty easy for me to integrate
> into new environments. Plus, if I'd join RDS, a lot of
> people would value the software even more, because I
> would know about 5000 people that would buy something
> just because I worked on it. No shit, I have
> statements to back it up. Wouldn't you feel euphoric
> if you knew MTS was coding on Eu?
<snip>
> Why else you think L&H hired me at the age of SIXTEEN?
> I used to be an official Whizzkid, meaning that I was
> a child genius. I spoke 3 languages at the age of 6. I
> am a marketing graduate and genius. Top of the class.
> I whent to a university at L&H at the age of 16 and
> graduated at the age of 18 as a C++ AI coder. I ran a
> team of 35 people at the age of 19. I'm still 19 right
> now. So I'm sure as hell I know how to code on
> Euphoria.
>
> Plus I'm cheap.
> I code for fun.
> I have strong work ethics and was hospitalised two
> times for over-working. I take half a gram of pils
> each day to keep me from flipping out because I work
> too hard.
> I'm an MCP, have an A+ degree, am an official Nintendo
> developer and have contracts with 6 publishers for 4
> platforms. I could kick Euphoria into the stores,
> wrapped up and boxed within a month around the globe.
> An IDE?
> Don't make me laugh!
> I know VB's IDE and I can top it within half an hour!!
> Yes, HALF AN HOUR! Did you read that? Half an hour of
> coding and I have set up an IDE for Euphoria that tops
> VB's. I have the code to do it, and the training. I
> have a first-class Euphoria(++) IDE with built-in web
> browser for docs and an interface to 70 C compilers
> for translation. With a multi-platform GUI creation
> tool plus library. ActiveX control support, App
> wizards that range from Text Editor to 3D Game
> producers.
Hey, I code for fun too. Why don't you release your U4IA++ as open source.
Then we could all marvel at your technical wizzardry (or lack there of),
and with thousands of programmers constantly improving it (<sarcasm>if
that's even possible</sarcasm>) you could have a really cool program.
And I did basic calculus in 8th grade - seriously. I started programming
when I was 7, and learned Assembly and C from reading a book on writing
operating systems before I had a compiler or assembler. It doesn't take a
genius, however, to figure out that most likely you don't know 22
languages, couldn't name 20 C compilers, and couldn't write an IDE better
than ed.ex in half an hour, let alone something to top VB.
Jeff Fielding
6. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
> What do you expect, comparing an optimized C
> program to interpreted Euphoria?
I expect the hype to live up to the real performance.
> Of course it's still slower compared to hand-written
> code. I haven't tried the interpreter, but I gather
> that there is a lot of features which your little
> for-loop don't use, which slow down the code. If
> you're going to use Euphoria, use the features and
> stop complaining when your pointless code runs 20
> times slower. If you really want to go through a
> loop
> really fast, try writing something in assembly like
> so:
>
> mov ecx, 0xFFFFFFFF
> label:
> loop label
Good, now we all know you read a 1 page tutorial on
ASM.
> I don't think you even know what you are talking
> about.
> COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, and DirectX have no effect
> on performance the way you're measuring it.
And I don't think you read what I'm talking about.
I didn't say these features would increase speed, I
mentioned that EUphoria should support them. I any
case it will probably slow down the code.
> And
> obviously
> Microsoft doesn't write their OSes in Euphoria!
> Euphoria
> is not designed to have the low-level features that
> an
> OS needs.
I was making a point, don't go over-analysing it.
> There are some things that C is just better for than
> Euphoria... writing OSes and games like Quake 3 are
> two
> of them. The high-performance 3D games/libraries out
> there
> take advantage of hand written assembly using the
> SIMD
> features of newer processors.
Actually, Euphoria is supposed to be usable to write
anything, it's an all-purpose language isn't it?
And most high-performance 3D games/liraries out there
are written 100% in C. They use APIS such as Direct X
and OpenGL to do their graphics drawing and
sound/networking support. They are most of the time
written entirely in C so porting to other platforms
becomes easier. I own the source to all the Quake
engines, do you?
> The reason there is little difference is obvious.
> Most of the time on that benchmark is spent in the
> sequence
> manipulation routines, which I bet are the same (or
> at least
> very similar) between the interpreter and the
> translator,
> and so the performance gain from compiling the loops
> is
> not as noticible as it would be on a less artificial
> benchmark.
Wha? What loop? That For-loop didn't use sequenes.
> As for the interpreter being faster,
> since
> the results are so close, you really need to run it
> many times to proove anything.
No way man. 10 times faster? No need to run that
again.
> That is moronic. C will always be as fast or faster
> than Euphoria code translated to C.
Haha! Only a moron can say that.
I thought you knew ASM?
If you did, you would know that inline ASM can speed
things up quite a bit.
> Nobody in their right mind would write a loop like
> that. If you're so worried about your sloppy code,
> write your own optimizer.
Why should the customer that buys a compiler write his
own optimizer for it?????
Mike The Spike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
7. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Jack Cat wrote:
> > Of course it's still slower compared to hand-written
> > code. I haven't tried the interpreter, but I gather
> > that there is a lot of features which your little
> > for-loop don't use, which slow down the code. If
> > you're going to use Euphoria, use the features and
> > stop complaining when your pointless code runs 20
> > times slower. If you really want to go through a
> > loop
> > really fast, try writing something in assembly like
> > so:
> >
> > mov ecx, 0xFFFFFFFF
> > label:
> > loop label
>
> Good, now we all know you read a 1 page tutorial on
> ASM.
I'm not the greatest ASM programmer (though I know quite a bit more than
that). My point is that your for-loop example is pointless.
> > I don't think you even know what you are talking
> > about.
> > COM, DCOM, ActiveX, OLE, and DirectX have no effect
> > on performance the way you're measuring it.
>
> And I don't think you read what I'm talking about.
> I didn't say these features would increase speed, I
> mentioned that EUphoria should support them. I any
> case it will probably slow down the code.
I haven't used it much, but isn't there already a DirectX library for
Euphoria. I haven't done much Windows programming recently... I use Linux.
> > There are some things that C is just better for than
> > Euphoria... writing OSes and games like Quake 3 are
> > two
> > of them. The high-performance 3D games/libraries out
> > there
> > take advantage of hand written assembly using the
> > SIMD
> > features of newer processors.
>
> Actually, Euphoria is supposed to be usable to write
> anything, it's an all-purpose language isn't it?
You could write pretty much anything in Euphoria, though many things could
be done more efficiently in C (or other languages).
> And most high-performance 3D games/liraries out there
> are written 100% in C. They use APIS such as Direct X
> and OpenGL to do their graphics drawing and
> sound/networking support. They are most of the time
> written entirely in C so porting to other platforms
> becomes easier. I own the source to all the Quake
> engines, do you?
Excuse me, my games/libraries is meant to include DirectX and OpenGL APIS
(which are actually encapsulated in DLLs... Dynamic Link LIBRARIES).
> > The reason there is little difference is obvious.
> > Most of the time on that benchmark is spent in the
> > sequence
> > manipulation routines, which I bet are the same (or
> > at least
> > very similar) between the interpreter and the
> > translator,
> > and so the performance gain from compiling the loops
> > is
> > not as noticible as it would be on a less artificial
> > benchmark.
>
> Wha? What loop? That For-loop didn't use sequenes.
No. You were complaining about the performance on the translated version
of sequence.ex. The loops I'm talking about here are the loops in
sequence.ex
> > As for the interpreter being faster,
> > since
> > the results are so close, you really need to run it
> > many times to proove anything.
>
> No way man. 10 times faster? No need to run that
> again.
In the places where the translator looses to the interpreter, there is
very little difference. I ran it, saw that the translator beat the
interpreter every time except on one part of the sequence.ex benchmark,
and I suspect that that was due to the fact that I was running X-Windows
etc. (though I have a dual processor box, and I killed all the processes
using any significant computing time) and the processes left running might
have sucked up the tiniest bit of processing power to make the difference.
> > That is moronic. C will always be as fast or faster
> > than Euphoria code translated to C.
>
> Haha! Only a moron can say that.
> I thought you knew ASM?
> If you did, you would know that inline ASM can speed
> things up quite a bit.
Um... since when was Assembly the same as C. I said that if you translate
Euphoria code into C, it will not run any faster than hand-written C code.
Likewise, if you translate Euphoria into assembly, it will not run any
faster than well optimized, hand-coded Assembly.
> > Nobody in their right mind would write a loop like
> > that. If you're so worried about your sloppy code,
> > write your own optimizer.
>
> Why should the customer that buys a compiler write his
> own optimizer for it?????
Programmers who claim to be geniuses and purposely write completely
pointless for-loops like that don't deserve compilers. Leave them with
Q-Basic. Besides, adding the necessicary optimization stuff to the
translator would be a waste! If you can optimize the Euphoria code, then
optimize it separately. It would make the translator cleaner, and it would
be useful for optimizing any Euphoria program.
Jeff Fielding
8. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On 5 Jan 2001, at 14:35, Jack Cat wrote:
> An IDE?
> Don't make me laugh!
> I know VB's IDE and I can top it within half an hour!!
> Yes, HALF AN HOUR! Did you read that? Half an hour of
> coding and I have set up an IDE for Euphoria that tops
> VB's. I have the code to do it, and the training. I
> have a first-class Euphoria(++) IDE with built-in web
> browser for docs and an interface to 70 C compilers
> for translation. With a multi-platform GUI creation
> tool plus library. ActiveX control support, App
> wizards that range from Text Editor to 3D Game
> producers.
Ok, do it, and put it, with Eu source code, on a web page for us to
download and check out. Please?
Kat
9. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by Bernie <xotron at LOCALNET.COM>
Jan 05, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 06, 2001
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:35:28 -0800, Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>platforms. Maybe I should officially join RDS. I'm a
Mike I live about 90 miles south of Rob.
So far we have receive over 100 inches ( I think thats about 250 cms )
so if you go to work for RDS you had better buy some warm clothes
and heavy boots.
10. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by George Henry <ghenryca at HOTMAIL.COM>
Jan 05, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 06, 2001
I am not directing this at any of you colorful personalities in particular,
hence I won't quote any of the hogwash/hooey (or should I just be rude,
since that seems to be the fashion nowadays, and say shit) that has been
flying back and forth.
Why do I have to read all this personal
"I'm the greatest"
"No you're not"
"You're stupid"
etc. etc. ad nauseam?
I'm beginning to think that many of the people who post regularly to this
list are highly intelligent babies.
If I don't stop having the DAILY experience of disgust and wondering why I
continue subjecting myself to this crap, I will take myself elsewhere and
put my time and energy to more productive use than reading this idiocy.
pissed-off George
11. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
Hi George
Firstly, don't remove yourself from this list just because of the current
situation.
Unfortunately this happens every two or three months. Mike the Spoiler
is a bit of a regular feature here I am afraid.
It is a shame because I am sure if he took two steps back from his hogwash
he would find that he really does have some talent that could be put to
better
use. All of that nervous energy he spews out onto the list is simply going
to
waste at the moment.
A number of good programmers left as a result of this last time.
Don't give in to it.....just block it.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Henry" <ghenryca at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
> I am not directing this at any of you colorful personalities in
particular,
> hence I won't quote any of the hogwash/hooey (or should I just be rude,
> since that seems to be the fashion nowadays, and say shit) that has been
> flying back and forth.
>
> Why do I have to read all this personal
>
> "I'm the greatest"
> "No you're not"
> "You're stupid"
>
> etc. etc. ad nauseam?
>
> I'm beginning to think that many of the people who post regularly to this
> list are highly intelligent babies.
>
> If I don't stop having the DAILY experience of disgust and wondering why I
> continue subjecting myself to this crap, I will take myself elsewhere and
> put my time and energy to more productive use than reading this idiocy.
>
> pissed-off George
>
12. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM>
Jan 05, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 06, 2001
Heh?
Allright allright..
Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Well, I'll do it like this.
Anyone can ask what they would like to see written in
Euphoria. Anything goes. If the majority of users
think the same, then I will make that project.
So go ahead, reply to this post with what you would
like to see written in Euphoria.
Mike The Spike
> To MTS.....
>
> Why not give us something we can all use.
>
> Use some of your talent to give us a useful library.
>
> Pick your poison...DOS/WINDOWS/LINUX.
>
> Pick something that could be useful.
>
> I would love to see someone do the Genesis 3D
> engine.
>
> I have been playing around with Morfit for a while
> now.
>
> Yes...Eu is slower than VC.
>
> YES....Eu is also quicker than VB.
>
> Performance reports from the Morfit Engine indicate
> that
> Eu is pretty well in the middle performance wise
> when it
> comes to stealing time from the engine.
>
> So what about it? Have a go. It doesn't have to be
> complete, just useful. Ray has done some cool stuff
> with
> Allegro and he isn't even sure that Eu is his
> language of
> choice.
>
> Get the free Eu you want by earning some happy
> users.
> If ten *registered* users think your lib is good
> enough to
> vote for then you'll just about have your free copy!
>
> Mark
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
13. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
Jan 05, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 06, 2001
On 5 Jan 2001, at 20:46, Jack Cat wrote:
> Heh?
> Allright allright..
> Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
>
> Well, I'll do it like this.
> Anyone can ask what they would like to see written in
> Euphoria. Anything goes. If the majority of users
> think the same, then I will make that project.
>
> So go ahead, reply to this post with what you would
> like to see written in Euphoria.
1) The IDE from Borland's Turbo Pascal, complete with the stepping
runtime debugger.
2) A "goto" in the core Eu language.
3) Real multitasking with global and local vars and signalling tween threads.
Kat
14. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
Mike wrote....
> Heh?
> Allright allright..
> Maybe that's not such a bad idea...
Coool!
> Well, I'll do it like this.
> Anyone can ask what they would like to see written in
> Euphoria. Anything goes. If the majority of users
> think the same, then I will make that project.
Hey, don't worry about that. What would you like to see
working with Eu? I'd like to see somebody take a crack
at Genesis 3D (Ray mentioned another 3D engine that I
took a quick look at....I think it was called "Jet"?)
Also, I reckon an IDE project for linux would be interesting.
I don't know much about linux....would it mean doing the
same thing for linux (X-windows?) as Dave Cuny and friends
have done for windows? Is that possible?
Both would be pretty big projects I would think.
Perhaps get a subset of a library working with an example.
Ray has made a bit of a success of Eu Allegro by doing the
work in chunks. He already has some happy users bucks.
Let us know what your thoughts are regarding a project.
All the best.
Mark
PS....I'm turning off MTS blocking so I can see your reply!
15. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
> > Anyone can ask what they would like to see written in
> > Euphoria. Anything goes. If the majority of users
> > think the same, then I will make that project.
I vote for a cross platform GUI (Win, Linux) ...
wrappers for wxWindows would be suitable ...
that can be followed by a cross platform IDE.
> I'd like to see somebody take a crack
> at Genesis 3D (Ray mentioned another 3D engine that I
> took a quick look at....I think it was called "Jet"?)
I think it was "Crystal 3D" from memory.
Supposedly it can achieve similar speed as Doom and Quake
on non 3D cards ... which caught my attention since I don't
have a 3D card.
Ray Smith
16. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:54:09 -0600, Kat <gertie at PELL.NET> wrote:
>2) A "goto" in the core Eu language.
I strongly disagree with this one..."goto" reminds us all too much of
BASIC, AND Euphoria is a structured language. "goto"'s don't belong in
structured languages.
- Matt
17. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
Hmm...
So I see that the majority of coders want a
multi-platform GUI, and a 3D Engine based on Crystal
Space or Genesis3D.
I decided to do both.
I was working on a library called GUI3D (read some
previous posts) wich incorporates a multiplatform GUI
and 3D graphics. I'll just finish that instead, and
put in a BSP-based 3D engine. I have the code to load
3DS files and shit. So you can download 3D models
from the net and stick 'em in your 3D game/program.
I need a day or more to finish this all up for all
platforms, and then I'll release it. Because
everything is in 100% Euphoria, 3D graphics
performance might be a
a tad slow (I dunno... 10 to 20 FPs without 3D Card?)
but use the Translator to deal with that.
Mike The Spike
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/
18. Re: www.Slow-AssEuphoria.com
- Posted by Jacques Guy <jguy at ALPHALINK.COM.AU>
Jan 18, 2001
-
Last edited Jan 19, 2001
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:45:25 -0800, Jack Cat <catjackus at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>Damn!
>After some benchmarks, written by yours truly zupahh
>l33t hax0r coder, I found out Eu is slow
>as...well...hell!
>It takes it a 100 times longer to execute a simple
>for-loop with an evaluation inside when compared to
>the same code written in LCCWin.
100 times slower? Not in my experience. I have used
Euphoria since version 1.0.
When I found myself developing 2000 lines of library
functions in Borland Pascal, which seemed like they'd
take me 50 lines of Euphoria, I did a test, using code
that actually did something, not just iterate assignments.
Ranging from statistical computations to dictionary-sorting and
reversal, requiring a lot of memory allocation and
de-allocation.
To my great surprise, Euphoria was at worst 8 times
slower then Borland Pascal; at best it was just as
fast.
Perhaps this is because I only work in DOS mode.
Whichever, that is when I decided to take the jump.
I have almost forgotten Pascal now, and I shrink
in horror at the mess of code I would have had to
write in Pascal, or C, or C++, to implement the
database I am currently working on. And the illegibility
and unmaintainability of it. Even if Euphoria was
_always_ 1/8 the speed of BP, it wouldn't be worth my while
going back.
