OpenEuphoria

Re: Eu Interpreted

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at telus.net> Aug 14, 2001
• 439 views

Why would you want to use a script in an interpreted program?
The only way to utilize an include for the script engine would be if the
application was intepreted. In which case, you would just implement the
script as the include itself.
If you wanted to execute it in a compiled program, you could just call a new
instance of the interpeter.
The only use of scripts in an app as I see it, is for dynamic execution. IE
custom expansions to an application, variable execution,etc.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme" <graemeburke at hotmail.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Eu Interpreted


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>