OpenEuphoria

Re: speed of eu 2.5 + dynamic inclusion

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Nov 20, 2004
• 1059 views

Alexander Toresson wrote:

> Now that I've tried the new interpreter, I find the parsing speed of it to be
> unacceptable.
> I do normally program everything on my laptop, to make myself able to work
> anywhere.
> It's not very fast. It's a p2 300. And because of that I get another
> advantage:
> I can easily see how a program of mine performs on a slower computer.
> And I expect euphoria to work at an acceptable speed on older systems too.
> Because I care about back-compatibility and I think it's one of the biggest
> factors
> one has to take into account when developing an application.
>
> The first application I developed was a DOS application, intended to run on a
> 486 75.
> I wouldn't dare of doing that now.
>
> Here are the times(p2 300):
>
> Simple win32lib application: 10s startup (eu2.4: 1.5s)
> MEditor:                     1 min 10s startup (!) (eu2.4: 3.5s)

Of course, I also see the disadvantage, but I think it mainly concerns
to:
o newbies
o other people who don't have the binder/shrouder
o the developement process of a program/library
  ==> I hope we can inlude "shrouded" IL libraries!!

When you don't want to change the MEditor source, but just want to use
it like any other editor, then why not use a shrouded/bound/compiled
version? When I use Word, ConTEXT and whatever else "editors", I always
run .EXE files.

> I've also found out that because everything is parsed before the program is
> run,
> dynamic inclusion cannot be done, ie writing include statements to a file
> and then including it. For example, both the jarod library, my asm debugger
> and
> a project I currently work on is affected. They simply won't run.
>
> It can be worked around for jarod and the asm debugger, though it cannot be
> worked around
> for my current project. It includes all *.e files it finds in a specific
> directory,
> using them as plugins. And no, don't tell me to compile them into dlls.
> Because that
> shouldn't be needed. And I don't own the full translator.

Concerning this point, I had an idea some time ago (URL might wrap):
http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=2&fromYear=9&toMonth=2&toYear=9&postedBy=Juergen+Luethje&keywords=%2214+Feb+2004+10%3A54%3A22%22

Maybe you can tell me, whether it actually works? 

> This is it. I'm downgrading to 2.4. Even though it'll mess up my associations
> again.
> Oh well.

Here is a little workaround:
Run 'regedit', and save the concerning brances of the registry to .REG
files. (Use an editor to merge the files to a single .REG file.)
Restoring your associations then just means double-clicking at the .REG
file(s).

Regards,
   Juergen