Francis Tyers <[email protected]> writes: > El dl 13 de 02 de 2012 a les 10:21 -0500, en/na Hector va escriure: >> Hi, >> going through the wiki I noticed this entry on a VM for transfer: >> >> http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/VM_for_transfer >> >> and these implementations: >> >> https://github.com/ggm/vm-for-transfer (Python) >> https://github.com/ggm/vm-for-transfer-cpp (C++) >> >> Now I have some questions about it: are these fully functional? > > They are fully functional. > >> are >> the Python and C++ implementations equivalent? how much faster is the >> VM approach compared to using apertium-{transfer, interchunk, >> postchunk}? Is the plan to have the Apertium pipeline use this VM >> approach instead? > > The C++ version is about 4-5 times slower than the normal transfer :(
http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Bytecode_for_transfer OTOH is 4-5 faster than normal transfer, although startup speed is slower. If transfer is a bottleneck, it should be very useful for e.g. tagging big corpora, or running a server. -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
