Re: speed of eu 2.5 + dynamic inclusion
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Alexander Toresson wrote:
>
> > Juergen Luethje wrote:
> >> Of course, I also see the disadvantage, but I think it mainly concerns
> >> to:
> >> o newbies
> >
> > Newbies scared off by slowness => fewer newbies => lesser growth
>
> Or more people will buy the binder, in order to increase speed. But
> I think your consideration above is right.
Hmm? Do the binder use the c frontend? Have I interpreted it wrongly?
> >> o other people who don't have the binder/shrouder
> >
> > I didn'thave it for a long time, because ordering something from Canada
> > seemed quite strange to my parents (I'm 16).
>
> Your parents took it away? Is there something we can do about it? Maybe
> we can write an e-mail to your parents, telling them who we are, and
> that we don't do any illegal or otherwise strange things here.
> I also can do this alone, privately, or your parents could write me a
> mail if they want, asking me whatever they like. I'm a 46 old physician
> from Berlin, Germany.
I do have it now. Maybe I formulated it wrongly. It took a year to convince
them.
> >> o the developement process of a program/library
> >
> > This is the point I'm mostly concerned about.
>
> Me too.
>
> > Using 2.5 would slow down my development process significantly.
> >
> >> ==> I hope we can inlude "shrouded" IL libraries!!
> >
> > Why should that be needed, other as a work-around (may I say hack)
> > for making the start-up for programs faster?
>
> Yes, programs then would start up faster (significantly if they include
> large libraries such as Win32Lib).
> Such a mechanism is e.g. also used in PowerBASIC (using the keyword
> "link"), and also in C, as Andy Drummond recently wrote.
> I wouldn't call it a work-around or a hack, I think it's quite logical
> behaviour. Parsing and compiling (in this case to IL code) takes time,
> and why do the same work over and over again, if it's not necessary?
Yeah, it was radical to call it a hack. But I do still think that
translating the frontend into euphoria code, making it 20x slower,
and using this in the official interpreter, is bad. I mean, the old one
was extremely fast, which makes il libraries completely unnecessary.
[snip]
> >>> 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):
> >> <a
> >> href="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">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</a>
> >>
> >> Maybe you can tell me, whether it actually works? 
> >
> > That is good idea, though not always usable.
>
> When is it not usable? Maybe we can find here another solution for those
> cases.
>
What if one doesn't want to add that extra complexity to one's code?
It adds an extra step in program execution that wasn't needed before.
But I do not see how this 'argument' of mine would hinder me from using
it. It is just an observation of what people may think.
/Lex
Shhh! Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
