right, but are *those* classes sealed?
Also I understood that no typing info has yet been added to LFC code.
I'd been led to believe that without typing or sealing, we'd
basically see no perf benefits. Maybe what Henry is saying about the
fact that we now generate native AS3 classes covers the difference?
but the delta seems too large for that.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 3:16 PM, P T Withington wrote:
Henry is only measuring instantiating lz.view, not user classes, yet.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 17:11, David Temkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It seems odd that if (1) classes are not declared as sealed, and
(2) no typing information has been added to LFC code, that we'd be
seeing the dramatic performance improvement over SWF8 that Henry
has measured.
Explanation?
- D.
On Feb 14, 2008, at 10:52 AM, P T Withington wrote:
I take this to mean either:
a) Their compiler is not taking advantage of sealing, yet.
b) Their compiler is very smart and realizes that although your
classes are declared dynamic, the are not extended in this
application so they can be treated as sealed.
On 2008-02-13, at 22:05 EST, Henry Minsky wrote:
I did some more testing of the view creation app (instantiating
10,000 empty
views), and tried declaring
all of the base LFC classes (LzNode, LzView, LzEvent, lzDelegate)
as
dynamic, and it did not actually
seem to make any significant slowdown in the speed. The creation
speed
averages about 100 usecs for
an empty view in either case.
So whatever was causing the factor of two slowness in the
tests a couple
weeks ago was some other bug.
The 100 usec speed is with the flex debug flag off, with
debugging on it was
about 120 usecs.
For comparison, the creation speed in swf8 seems to be about 330
usecs for
the same empty view.
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
