Re: Interpreter startup speed
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:10:23 -0700, Jason Gade
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>Al Getz wrote:
>> the time to open a file is much longer with the 2.5 version
>> I realize that compiling everything before running has some advantages,
>> 1. First complile a small section of the code to allow a user
>> to put up a small splash screen to tell the user it's opening.
>Previous versions of Euphoria used incremental compilation I believe.
>it compiles a bit in the background as it starts running the program.
I am convinced this will not help. One fact stares us in the face
which is that Eu is about 8 times slower than C, for good reasons, and
has been since Eu 1.0. Now Rob has just migrated the front end from C
to Eu, and that is exactly what we (on slower machines) hit.
Considering this in practical terms, imagine a 5,000 line program:
include win32lib
splash(blah)
<5,000> lines of code
WinMain().
There's a big problem: win32lib is itself some 45,000+ lines of code,
so instead of a 15 second startup delay, you get a 13.5 second delay,
the splash, and the main program 1.5 seconds after that.
Personally, I feel that Rob was quite right to make this switch now,
it is not his problem that this (found in the street) box cannot cope,
nor, I expect, is he worried that I stick with 2.4 as a result. (btw,
I kid not that on this box 2.5 takes 25 seconds to load win32lib,
whereas 2.4 does it in just under 5. Bet few can worse that.)
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
