OpenEuphoria

RE: v2.5 Opens exw files wayyyy too slow

• Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Dec 23, 2004
• 1060 views

Matt Lewis wrote:
> 
> Vincent wrote:
> > 
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The biggest Euphoria program in the world takes you an extra
> > > > 2 seconds to load. Pity.
> > > 
> > > 2 seconds is not even acceptible for a compiler anymore. How should it
> > > be any more acceptible for an interpeter, which is supposed to excecute
> > > my code immediately. That IS the main purpose of an interpeter isn't it?
> > > 
> > I was able to get my 105 MB Windows EU program to translate
> > and complie perfectly, to a 70 MB EXE (uncompressed) 71 KB(kilo-bytes) EXE
> > file (ultra-compressed) But took 3.5 hours to translate and "45 minutes"
> > to do the compiling with Open Watcom 1.3 It could be alot worse if
> > it was 105 MB of user defined ruitines. Yes, Watcom is the slowest
> > but its the best for the translator. It takes about 20 minutes to
> > translate and compile Enhanced IDE. Eu2C is my favorate product, even
> > more than Euphoria it self :P LOL
> 
> This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard on this list.
> (Both the 2sec compiler, and the 105MB program).  That aside, I mostly 
> use Borland, because it builds *so* much faster (although looking now, 
> I see I've still got OW 1.2).  
> 
> Can you please tell me what you envision doing that would legitimately
> have 105MB of source code?  That all *needs* to be loaded at once?
> 
> Matt Lewis
> 
It was mearly a test to see how stable the translators actually are..
Tho simple, 105 MB was a demanding test. Both the Linux and Windows
translators worked perfectly. I assume FreeBSD one too would work
DOS failed however. It also proves that compressed translated/compiled
EXEs can still be smaller than if binded. Using UPX 1.92b with the --brute
option I was able to bring that 70 MB EXE (35 megs smaller than origional
source, because the compiler and translator optimized the "simple repeated"
code) to 71 KB (not MB) without a noticable decrease in loading time.

Why I did it? Because I was bored and wanted somthing to do. tho
I didnt stay on my computer while the process was taking place
it took 4 hours to do. And ofcourse there would never be a need to
have such a huge program or likely realisticly make a program
that big.. but it proves that it could be done!!!