Moving to MC 2.7

[Wilhelm Sanke]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, "J. Landman Gay" <jacque at hyperactivesw.com> in 
response to Tariel Gogoberidze wrote:

> >> OK, thanks for this info. It's probably more convenient to just build
> >> standalone in Rev but  I wanted to avoid "Rev Junk" placed in my
> >> standalone. Some of my stacks are "image intensive" and this 200 - 
> 1000
> >> millisecond speed difference that Wilhelm discovered would matter.
>
>
> I think Wilhelm was doing some very intensive tests. I haven't noticed
> any speed difference at all wiwth standalones built in Rev. And while I
> don't disagree he got different timings in his tests, I haven't had any
> problem with speed. If you can't get the MC builder to work, you could
> try Rev. I've had good luck with it.
>
> -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com



Thanks, Jacqueline, for "not disagreeing" with me, but the problems you 
do *not* have with such speed differences may be problems for others, 
surely for me and maybe for Tariel.

I see no reason why we should tolerate sloppy programming and accept 
this as a "revolution".

Using the "reset image" button in my test stack (of script "set the 
imagedata of img 1 to decompress(the Bilddaten of me)") is 10 times (ten 
times) slower in Rev than in Metacard, both in stacks and standalones.

For the "duplicate color" buttons and images 1600 X 1200 Rev is three 
seconds slower. I refer to the detailed results of my last post of 
thread "Speed differences between MC and Rev (problem area nearly found)".

You can test this in both IDEs for yourself using stack 
<http://www.sanke.org/Software/MC-Rev SpeedTest-BZ.zip>.

The ending "BZ" denotes that I am going to use this stack as an 
attachment to my Bugzilla entry.

Best regards - no offense intended, but I was not quite sure what you 
were going to convey.

Wilhelm Sanke
<http://www.sanke.org/MetaMedia>