On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:20 +0200, Ingo wrote: > > Interesting. How did you quantify the amount of message transfers? What > > makes it differ so much, like you say? > > I simply (roughly) counted the numbers of objects the calculation including > all sub processes have to pass until you get the final result. > (Unfortunately I cannot tell how heavy each of these calculations is > compared to another one.) > > I started this a while ago since I am running my machines always at the very > limit that they can handle. Which is why I started cutting down the number > of processes needed to get something done wherever possible. Saving 20% of > the calculations in a machine that's at the limit can make quite a > difference. Of course it's the audio processes that are heavier than the > control processes. > > I remember a discussion here a while ago about how heavy the actual message > transfer is. So keeping calculations as simple and straight forward all of > the time will keep the machines from getting overloaded earlier than > necessary. Which again reminds me that I have to redo lots of old stuff for > efficiency - never ending story! > > Ingo
If you want efficiency in this object, you should implement it in C. That should not be hard to do since the Firmata code is C++, but coded mostly in a C style. So you can get all of the parsing and message generating code from Firmata.cpp and StandardFirmata.pde, and make a compiled object out of it. And Ingo, if you implement a fixed the [debytemask] approach, I'll included it in the Pduino arduino.pd. .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list