Thanks Sean. (I forgot to mention that I was testing on Racket 6.0.1.4). Apparently it does not lag on your machine, so it might be particular to my machine then? Strange.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Sean Kanaley <skana...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's my log after pasting the source into command-line racket 6.0, > Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit: > > to-draw at 1649 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > on-key a at 2934 > to-draw at 2934 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 > on-key s at 2970 > to-draw at 2970 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > on-key d at 3044 > on-key f at 3044 > to-draw at 3045 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 0 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3069 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > on-key a at 3198 > on-key s at 3198 > to-draw at 3199 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3329 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3392 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > on-key g at 3430 > on-key j at 3430 > on-key k at 3430 > to-draw at 3430 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3467 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > on-key a at 3504 > on-key l at 3504 > to-draw at 3505 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3547 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3572 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > on-key h at 3602 > to-draw at 3602 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > on-key k at 3659 > on-key ; at 3659 > to-draw at 3659 > > to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3689 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3725 > > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > to-draw at 3776 > to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 1 gc time: 0 > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Laurent <laurent.ors...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I have a 2htdp/universe program that used to run fast enough a few months >> ago, but now it is very slow and not usable. >> The slowness seems to be because of the on-screen rendering, and not >> because of the generation of the image. >> >> Here is a stripped-down version that shows this behavior: >> https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/11142941 >> >> In the following log, you see that the `on-key` events are very close one >> to the other (in milliseconds after the beginning of the program), but the >> corresponding `to-draw` events are separated by more than a second, even >> though generating the image (cpu time) takes almost no time: >> >> on-key a at 6906 >> on-key u at 6912 >> on-key i at 6912 >> on-key e at 6913 >> to-draw at 6913 >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 3 gc time: 0 >> to-draw at 8598 >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 2 gc time: 0 >> to-draw at 11948 >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 2 gc time: 0 >> to-draw at 13631 >> to-draw: cpu time: 0 real time: 2 gc time: 0 >> to-draw at 161839 >> to-draw: cpu time: 4 real time: 9 gc time: 0 >> >> During those long seconds, Xorg is almost at 100% cpu. >> >> However, using an empty scene instead of an image is fast. >> The time also depends on the size of the grid. >> >> I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 64bits. >> I have tried to replicate the behavior on older versions of racket (5.3.1 >> and 5.90.0.9) but it's the same. So maybe the problem is not on Racket's >> side but something has changed in Ubuntu? >> >> Does anyone else see the same behavior, either on the same platform or on >> a different one? >> >> Thanks, >> Laurent >> >> >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >> >> >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
