Re: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:26:49 -0800, Robert Craig 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.
>
> ... or don't want to do so. Am I supposed to buy a new PC, just in order
> to reduce the parsing time of the new Euphoria interpreter?
> Some people keep writing, that a new PC only costs about 500 USD.
You can find slightly outdated ones for less. Try ebay.
> Then the upgrade from Eu 2.4 Complete Edition to the Eu 2.5 binder costs
> for me 524 USD rather than 24 USD. Any further comments necessary?
>
> > 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.
>
> I hope 2.5 beta will run dramatically faster also on other old machines.
> My PC contains a Pentiom II prozessor, 400 MHz. Although it's got
> *256 MB* RAM, promgrams that e.g. include Win32Lib are parsed unbearable
> slow by Eu 2.5 alpha. I'll have to wait and see, what "dramatically
> faster" actually means, too.
Remember that Eu 2.5 is still alpha, there is still time for improvement.
>
> > 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.
>
> "most people"? How much percent? Where do that statistical data come from?
>
> >> In a couple of years no one will care about this.
>
> Then it will be the best, to use Eu 2.5 not now, but "in a couple of
> years"?
>
> >> 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.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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?
>
> That's one of the the main points in this context. I wrote about it
> already some weeks ago.
>
> > 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:
> > }}}
<eucode>
> > include win32lib.ew
> > winMain( create(Window, "Hello World",0,Default,Default,200,100,0), Normal)
> > </eucode>
{{{
> > to run, what's he going to think?
> > Without a doubt, he'll think: "This language is really slow!"
>
> Yes, and he'll be completely right in this regard.
>
> > 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.
>
> Eu 2.4 *has* this possibility. Paradoxically, it's not available in Eu
> 2.5 any more, while parsing time has considerably increased ...
>
> > 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...
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
> --
> Have you read a good program lately?
>
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
