Well, as an educational content deliverer I try to make my programs run
no faster than the
brains of my pupils/students; mind you, in certain cases that is
glacially slow. :)
Years ago, on my Performa 475 things were great, I had time to takes
gulps of coffee
between sentences in my Master's thesis (i.e. waiting for the stuff I
had typed in
Clarisworks to show up on the screen); now I have to have a silly
program that tells
me when to take a break!
And, I always use "btn", "img", "gc" and "fld", but "card" - don't quite
know why,
but I find "cd" confuses me. Now that I find that using short-forms
(err, or is it the other
way round) is going to make my stacks a milli-microsecond faster I will
reform
myself, needless to say.
Brian Yennie wrote:
I'm a bit skeptical that any such difference actually exists. Both the
short and long forms should map to the exact same compiled code.
Theoretically the long form would take longer to parse / compile the
first time, but we're talking about the parsing of individual
characters -- something that would have immeasurably small impact.
When I run the benchmark, the faster method seems to depend on a
combination of which one appears first in the script and/or the
direction of the wind, and doesn't appear to be repeatable.
René Micout wrote:
Jacqueline,
You said yesterday (?) that using synonym like "cd", "btn", "fld"
is slower than "card", button", "field". That is, I think, an
interesting problem because I use synonym every time...
What is the difference (speed) ?
Not enough to bother with, IMO.
I ran this test:
on mouseUp
put 100000 into n
-- Abbrev:
put the millisecs into t
repeat n
set the uX of sb 1 to the text of fld 1
end repeat
put the millisecs - t into t1
-- Full:
put the millisecs into t
repeat n
set the uX of scrollbar 1 to the text of field 1
end repeat
put the millisecs - t into t2
--
put "Abbrev: "& t1/n && " Full: "& t2/n &\
cr& "Difference: "& t1/n - t2/n
end mouseUp
...and got this result:
Abbrev: 0.00213 Full: 0.00211
Difference: 0.00002
I'm normally quick to adopt habits which will optimize performance,
knowing that every clock cycle saved is one I can put toward
bullet-point features, but on this one the productivity loss of
typing the full form for all object references isn't worth the
0.00002 millisecond to me.
No doubt this difference would be much greater if one were doing this
in a "send", "do" or "value" call because those need to run through
the compiler in each iteration. But for that reason I use those as
seldom as possible anyway; the overhead of using "send" is orders of
magnitude more than the overhead of using abbreviations.
It's still not the end of the world to use "send", and when you need
it you need it. But avoiding "send", "do", or "value" where
practical will save you much more time than avoiding abbreviations.
Besides, with "dispatch" and behaviors in v3.5 I rarely use "send"
these days. "Dispatch" is similar to send in many ways, and AFAIK it
still needs to be runtime-compiled, but something about it is
optimized so that it benchmarks at least 30% faster.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
