Re: Kat's 8bit sequences
irv mullins wrote:
>
> Shawn Pringle wrote:
> >
> > ** The Idea **
> >
> > Some sequences store their values using 64-bits each value others 32 bits.
> > Yet
> > it is transparent to the user. See the performance note under strings.
> > What
> > was done for 32 bit values could also be done for 8 bit byte values. Call
> > them
> > Kat sequences. The EUPHORIA syntax wouldn't change, yet under the hood the
> > amount of memory used for some sequences is 1 byte per value plus sequence
> > overhead.
> >
> >
> > ** The Need? **
> >
> > When EUPHORIA was released 15 years ago when computers were lucky to have a
> > 500 MB HARD DRIVE this wasn't a problem. It would seem less important these
> > days with so much RAM. Yet, Robert Craig didn't think it was an issue then.
> > Is
> > it an issue today?
>
> I learned a long time ago two things about programming:
>
> 1. I could manipulate many megs of data using only a few hundred bytes of
> memory.
> 2. I would be an idiot to try to do it that way.
>
> Why take weeks to create a slow, complex, probably bug-ridden program when
> you can throw cheap hardware at the problem and get the results much quicker,
> with less chance for errors, using a simple script?
Because what "cheap" hardware means to one person may mean unaffordably
expensive to another, and their TIME may be much more easily spent?
>
> So is there a need? Not for most of us, in fact probably only one here.
> The others who do this kind of thing probably investigated Eu and decided
> it was handicapped compared to other languages. Therefore, you won't see
> them here. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
But *if there's no performance hit* for adding 8 bit byte value sequences,
then those "others" might be encouraged to use Euphoria, which would generally
be recognized as a (mostly) good thing for Euphoria?
Dan
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
