On Sunday 20 May 2012 16:59:40 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Andy also says of GC:
>
> "Fancy items like generational collectors fail the "small and simple"
> criteria and are not likely to be included."
Generational garbage collection is not that difficult. When you have a working
mark & sweep GC, ex
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 19:17 +0200, James Turner wrote:
>
> This is interesting - as far as I know, the current GC does not
> include a maximum delay and restart facility. If it did, that would
> entirely satisfy the current issues. At least by my understanding.
>
> Equally, I've looked at the
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 13:58 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> > just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
> > its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
>
> Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
>
> > I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
>
> Pascal summarized it ni
Hi all,
After an IRC session with Anders Gidenstam (a big thanks to him) I'm able to
give you a new git diff.
This
new git diff fix the possible bugs about *nix/Windows end of line (\n
or \r\n) and give a full compatibility between old and new STG parser.
The git diff is available here : http
On 20 May 2012, at 17:59, Vivian Meazza wrote:
>
> "The current implementation is a simple mark/sweep collector, which should
> be acceptable for most applications. Future enhancements will include a
> "return early" capability for latency-critical applications. The collector
> can be instructe
Thorsten
> > just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
> > its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
>
> Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
>
> > I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
>
> Pascal summarized it nicely - we already have ported the important
> just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
> its elsif in nasal , not elseif ... no e
Thanks. That would explain it ;-)
> I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Pascal summarized it nicely - we already have ported the important stuff to
C++, so what remai
>
> So, just to get this out of the way, some benchmark tests. As you have
> probably discovered by now, elseif isn't valid syntax and leads to a parse
> error, so my 427 instances of using it are trivial to justify :-)
just a quick note to this interesting thread ...
its elsif in nasal , not el
Erik Hofman writes:
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 10:43 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>> Advanced Weather doesn't burn any significant performance inside
>> Nasal - it burns the performance by calling hard-coded C++
>> functionality from Nasal.
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 10:43 +, Renk Thorsten wrote:
> Advanced Weather doesn't burn any significant performance inside Nasal - it
> burns the performance by calling hard-coded C++ functionality from Nasal.
I hope you're not suggesting that C++ is always slower than Nasal? :-)
Erik
> 88 declared but unused variables
> 47 declarations of the same or similar variables
> 427 instances of "else if" instead of "elsif"
> 100 instances of I = I + 1 instead of i+=1
> Numerous examples of variables declared inside for loops, and some of those
> are inside other for loops
> Variables d
11 matches
Mail list logo
