>I kinda did this thing too see how fast (or slow) lingo really is.
>I think i've got my answer....
>I hope the MM folks are planning to do something about that.
Here I go again... (continuation of a rant from another list)
There *is* a way to speed Lingo up--a compiler. Your code is an excellent
example--it would probably be 20 to 50 times faster if the code was compiled.
Instead, we're stuck with 1980s technology--the same clunky, slow
interpreter that was used in old-style BASIC, like I was writing in 1982.
I don't understand why this isn't at the top of Macromedia's list of
upgrades--there is no other single thing they could do to increase
performance more, at least for Lingo-heavy apps.
At the beginning of a project, the Powers That Be make a decision--do we
need performance, or quick development time. If performance is the sine qua
non, they use C++. If they can put up with slower performance, they use
Director.
A Lingo compiler would put Director in the same class with C++ as far as
performance, without sacrificing development time.
Sigh. I have to get back to work. If you understand what I'm talking about,
though, make some noise at Macromedia--the more people who put this on the
wish list, the more likely they are to pay attention.
Cordially,
Kerry Thompson
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
