Re: documentation errors
Robert Craig wrote:
> I found out today why the start-up of large programs can be
> very slow on old machines using 2.5 alpha.
> I went back to my old Windows ME machine today
> and did a bunch of careful performance measurements.
> On my new beta version of the front-end (that I'm still improving),
> I now get this:
>
> 350 MHz Pentium II, 64 Mb RAM
> Judith's IDE - 103,000 lines of code
>
> 2.5 alpha 2.5 beta (work in progress)
> parse-time: 15 13
> time-until SPLASH screen: 48 14
> time until ready to use: 70 24
>
> There's more that I'm working on that will
> improve this. Anyway the main finding
> was that the time is wasted after the front end
> is finished, and before the back-end starts,
> as well as during the initial phase of the back-end.
> It's due to inefficiencies with WATCOM's management
> of the the heap. I've fixed that now.
>
> This between-ends delay isn't a problem on newer machines.
> On my XP machine, 1.8 GHz, 256MB RAM, the
> time-until-ready-to-use is 6 seconds or less of which
> about 2.5 seconds is parse time. The rest is
> Judith's initializaton code.
>
> Smaller programs parse faster (more lines/sec).
> The time to parse a program goes up somewhat
> more than linearly, due to there being thousands
> of symbols, longer sequences to append to,
> a bigger heap to search etc. But I guess I should
> lower the 35000 figure a bit (or raise the CPU MHz),
> since I'm using machine-generated C for the parser,
> rather than hand-coded C.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
>
Okay, so is there any reason for you to stick with the Watcom compiler? Can you
try say the <a href="http://www.digitalmars.com" title="Digital Mars C/C++"/a>
Also, Digital Mars D language has a lot of features similar to Euphoria
sequences in a compiled language. Could it be used to implement Euphoria?
j.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
