On 6/25/07, David Sitsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you do a comparison between Kate and webc++ on something a little > smaller? Say something with roughly 1000 SLOCs. I'd be curious to > see what the difference is. File src/sqliteInt.h from sqlite-3.3.17 distribution (86K, 1075 SLOCs). Kate engine used standalone (not within Codestriker): 9.6 sec real time Web C Plus Plus 0.8.2 (pipe mode): 2.0 real time
It seems the speed difference is nonlinear function of size because sqlite3 amalgamation was processed by webc++ at 16 seconds (>300 Kate's seconds). > If it is huge, perhaps going the webc++ or enscript route might be better. I can't decide if more speed is really needed for my tasks. Quicker is better but Kate's speed is enough for now. I don't think Enscipt is the good for Codestriker because Enscript uses visual formatting (b, i, font color="xxx" tags) instead of semantic (span class="comment"). Codestriker should parse highlighted data as it should place LXR links but enscripted data is harder to parse than webcpp'ed. Speed of enscripting is roughly the same as speed of webc++'ing. -- Nikita V. Borodikhin, System Administrator NIKB-RIPN BNV7-RIPE Registered Linux user #256562 with the Linux Counter ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Codestriker-user mailing list Codestriker-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/codestriker-user
