Re: Why some ...+ FASTER PARSING than 2.4 !
Vincent wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
>> Using Eu 2.4, it is possible to include pre-parsed (shrouded) files
>> without the need of a special "with" clause. This is simple and
>> straightforward. I don't see an advantage when we would have to use such
>> a "with" clause.
>
> Yea, but wouldn't it be faster just to bind or shroud the entire program? I
> mean shrouding is an seperate step that must be peformed on numerous source
> files consecutively.
It depends on the situation.
E.g. when I'm developing a program that uses Win32lib (which is not
changed by me, and which takes a rather long time to parse), then it
is a good idea to include Win32lib in a pre-parsed format.
But my own program is often changed during development (and is probably
not as huge as Win32lib). So I don't want to include my own files in a
pre-parsed format while they are under developement.
>> Yes, faster than the pre 2.5 method when plain source code text files
>> are included. However, at least with Eu 2.4 we also could/can include
>> pre-parsed (shrouded) files. I think not many people have done so,
>> though.
>> BTW: You can shroud include files (e.g. Win32lib) with Eu 2.4, and then
>> include these shrouded (= pre-parsed) files in your Eu 2.5 programs!!!
>
> It would be faster to bind or shroud the entire program once, than to shroud
> 24 library files that would be included into your main program.
> The smallest modification to them would require a full re-shroud step.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a subsequent post Vincent wrote:
> I take that back...
>
> You could obviously make a single file that contains a list of include
> statements
> then just shroud that; one could also do that for a DLL/SO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I think obfuscated IL (shrouded) include files could be useful when one wishes
> to release partial source code to their project, but needs other proprietary
> libraries to function. But then again, they could just build DLLs or SOs
> instead
> that execute up to five times faster.
Someone who has the binder but not the translator can *not* build DLLs
or SOs. And even if s/he has the translator, s/he might prefer to
release a bound program rather than a translated program, e.g. because
the first one will give more meaningful error messages. The programmer
should have the choice.
Regards,
Juergen
--
Have you read a good program lately?
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
