RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> Chris Bensler wrote:
> >
> > I also choose to use an intepreter because I take advantage of that
> > trait. I often use dynamic inclusion, and also make config files using
> > eu source. You can't compile either of those methods.
> >
> > Installing euphoria on a clients machine is not a big deal either.
> > They don't know any different whatsoever. That would be a different
> > story if I tried that with 2.5
>
> Why is there any difference? OK, I understand that you've been taking
> advantage of a feature that Rob has been warning might go away since it
> was first brought up. You can't do that any more, but it shouldn't be
> a huge surprise. Why are you installing alpha software on a client's
> computer, anyway?
>
> > What about CGI apps? We are supposed to bind them too?
>
> How big are your CGI apps? If you're really concerned about speed,
> you'd
> have already translated them already anyway. A CGI app in a
> 'production'
> environment shouldn't be undergoing lots of editing anyway, so it
> shouldn't
> really be a hardship to bind or translate once and leave running.
>
> Matt Lewis
When was it ever mentioned that euphoria will no longer parse on the
fly?
I know that dynamic includes are my hack, and I don't complain about
that, other than to mention that I can't do it anymore.
I would prefer if there were a real method of dynamic includes, but
there isn't, despite I dunno how many requests.
I consider the main trait of an intepreter to be the fact that it
interprets my code. Why is it called an interpreter if it has to be
compiled? It's not even JIT, it's compile, then execute.
Why is it necessary for me to give my clients an executable? The
interpreted code runs just fine, and it's alot less headaches for me.
Not to mention that I can actually take advantage of the fact that I'm
using an interpreter, rather than just some slow language with a nifty
syntax.
If I have to bind my programs, then that is an extra step I have to do.
I don't want to, I like using an interpeter for that reason, so I don't
have to.
How do you suggest I bind my linux CGI apps on my windows machine?
I should use SSH? I could also make a batch script to do it through the
webbrowser... I still don't think that is a very reasonable solution.
What about automatically generated source code? How should I bind that?
I could just give my clients the binder with the cgi app I suppose,
doesn't matter much to me.
Chris Bensler
Code is Alchemy
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
