On Sep 14, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Mike Woodworth wrote:
I'm soooo in your camp on the need for high performance constructs
in RB... but i think we need RS to focus on makign what they have
faster, rather than hoping that additional syntax will yield faster
compiled code... whats to make your index any faster than the byte
offsets? the simplest way to add what you requested would likely
be slower than the byte offsets.
Over the years I've heard lots of requests for syntax changes to
make things run faster - as long as the compiler isnt optimizing,
there's very little chance that new syntax will yield any speed
bump. I think our best bet is to phrase the questions such as: can
we have a way to access our memoryblocks faster - this yielded ptrs
(something which direct requests for were lambasted on this list -
often by RB folks.)
that said... i'd like to see ptrs sped up even more... perhaps
quick ways to increment them, a way to copy arbitrary runs of bytes
between ptrs ala memcpy. even a way to alloc a ptr/memoryblock
without zeroing could come in handy and help speed up some situations.
Just declare malloc and have at it. Using Ptr is significantly faster
than MemoryBlock in cases I've timed.
As for performance, let's be signing onto those feature requests for
compiler improvements.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
