> -----Original Message----- > From: Nicklas Karlsson [mailto:nicklas.karlsso...@gmail.com] > Sent: October-10-17 12:36 PM > To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) > Subject: Re: [Emc-users] MachineKit on the BeagleBone Black > > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:04:17 -0700 > Chris Albertson <albertson.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > When peole find the Python is slow, general it is because they are > > abusing Python and trying to use it as if it were C by doing things > > like writing "for loops" over a list. Then of course there is always > > the Python compeer that does translate Python to C. > > I read some python code. Variables and objects had neither types nor any > comments. I found it hard to figure out which variables and functions where > available for objects. Then I use typed languages like C or C++ this is not a > problem and in modern editors I could get a list to chose from. Some languages > have really good type checking so for example range of numbers is known then > using variable. >
Python is just plain slow. There are lots of benchmarks that demonstrate just how slow it is. I think though, there is definitely an issue with the graphical side of the screen on a Beagle compared to a Pi3 for example. Loading an identical copy of Lazarus (Pascal like Delphi 5) takes almost twice as along on the Beagle. Compiling a simple main window with dialog box example on both systems takes pretty well twice as long on a Beagle. Loading the compiled program takes twice as long on the Beagle. Once could say it's due to the dual core on the Pi3 but remember the development environment has to actually take advantage of all that in order to make it work and I'm not sure it does. The key difference between the Pi3 and the Beagle is the X Window graphical interface is different. I suspect the authors of the Pi have looked at their target market (which is now way bigger than the Beagle I believe) and done what is needed to make the Pi operate as smoothly as a Windows PC that most Pi users have experience with. Helps sell Raspberries. I suspect the desire to do that for the Beagle isn't there so it always feels more antiquated using it compared to using the Pi. A long time ago I told a programmer friend of mine that I wanted to do a specific task in Turbo Pascal for Windows. (This was in the 80's). His first response was "It can't be done" and he had a number of reasons. I didn't believe him so I wrote a program with the main function taking up about one page. I then showed it to him with the claim. "See it can be done!" He promptly took my code and cut it down in size to 1/3rd to accomplish the same thing. He was very good at this sort of thing. From that I learned something interesting that hasn't been proved wrong yet. First, programmers, like myself, are lazy and it's easier to say it can't be done or something to that effect. I now interpret "It can't be done" as "I haven't given it any thought, I'm not sure how to do it and really I have other things I'd rather do". My friend, Ian MacKay and I worked together on a number of projects over the years culminating in the 2010 Olympic Rings project where he wrote the Delphi Show software for my embedded controller and custom lights. I miss him. May he reset in peace. He never did get to see the double ring set we did but the code he wrote was easy to modify to handle 1500 lights as two sets of rings and also incorporate 3rd party light show software. He was brilliant. I'm therefore suspicious of claims that a 1GHz Beagle isn't fast enough. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
