OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu Interpreted

• Posted by Graeme <graemeburke at hotmail.com> Aug 13, 2001
• 432 views

At 09:57  13/08/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>On Monday 13 August 2001 15:46, Kat wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Lua, has anyone compared the Eu interpreters coded in Eu to
>> the Lua ability to exec commands stored in strings? Are they as fast? Less
>> able? What about nested procedures and functions, and lengths of the
>> strings? If Eu has a line length limit, is a string that exceeds this limit
>> non- executeable in the interpreters? So i cannot pass a 1/2 megabyte file
>> to the doubley interpreted Eu, right? I accept that the interpreted
>> languages are slower than compiled languages, but is the doubly-interpreted
>> Eu still as fast as the Lua in a dostring()?
>
>Kat:
>
>Reading a 10,500 line text file and sorting it100 times in Euphoria takes 
>9.38 seconds, the same task in Lua takes 9.61 seconds. Making the sort call 
>via "dostring" instead of direct takes 9.62 seconds. I don't think Euphoria 
>interpreting Eu code is going to be able to beat that. Or even come close. 
>
>Regards,
>Irv


If you did some preprocessing to produce an include file containing an
indexed table
of routine_id's from all routines used you could do it without much
overhead, apart from
the cost of the table itself. You would need a routine to recognize and call
builtins,
but that would just be a simple switch.

in the example above the     dostring("file=sort(file)")  or whatever
could be only 2 lookups and a call_func. So speeds might be comparable.
routines declared within strings would be another matter, but I imagine 
most calls would be to pre-defined stuff.....




Graeme