Re: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:26:49 -0800, Robert Craig
<guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to make things more complicated.
>
> 1. If you have a decent machine (less than 3 years old),
> you can probably parse 100,000 lines in 3 seconds.
> 99% of programs are much smaller than that.
> Maybe your scheme would cut that to 1 second.
> Judith's IDE, for example, then takes 3 more seconds
> executing code to initialize itself (nothing to do with parsing).
Well, many people don't *have* decent machines, and can't afford to
upgrade them. Otherwise, yes, it's a largely valid point.
> 2. 2.5 beta parses significantly faster than 2.5 alpha in all cases.
> It's dramatically faster on old machines with small memories
> (64 MB or less) when very large programs are parsed.
That is very good to hear. Any ideas as to when it will be released?
(Heh sorry, no pressure)
> 3. Old, slow machines are disappearing every day, being replaced
> by > 2GHz machines. Already, most people have little concern about
> parse speed. In a couple of years no one will care about this.
> Why build a major new mechanism that has little use now, and
> will be completely useless in a couple of years?
> It will be one more thing to confuse beginners.
Hey, what about my 286 in the closet!
Yes, it may become less useful over time, but remember that the way
CPU technology is going, we're not going to get much faster
clock-speeds. It's more likely going to be multi-cored, which I don't
think would help parse time much. Speaking of major new mechanisms,
how about multi-threaded execution?
> 4. If you translate, your app will start with zero parse time.
> If you bind, your app will also now start with zero parse time (in 2.5).
That's against one of the major selling points of euphoria. Namely,
that it's Edit, Run, Edit, Run, Edit, Run. If it has to be
bound/compiled, it adds an extra step.
Thanks for your response.
Just one thing though... what about the large windows libraries, like
win32lib? You can't bind them, the new programmer needs to interpret
win32lib every time they run their little tiny windows app.
It would be nice to be able to turn libraries into semi-compiled
files, to make interpreting faster. Despite all of your explanations
above, I still believe this is important. Why?
Joe Newbie downloads Euphoria... realises that he needs win32lib to do
windows programming, downloads that too.
Now, if he has to wait several seconds for:
include win32lib.ew
winMain( create(Window, "Hello World",0,Default,Default,200,100,0), Normal)
to run, what's he going to think?
Without a doubt, he'll think: "This language is really slow!"
I think there should at least be a way to 'bind' or 'shroud' libraries
in such a way that a program can include them without the parser
having to interpret it every time. Do you think that's technically
feasible? I guess a header in the file containing lookups for each
global function and variable name would be enough. It could be only
available to registered users, that's fine...
--
MrTrick
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
