[ANN] Help with a LiveCode Presentation/Demo

[Kay C Lan]

Sorry, typo...

if (tWH = tWH) then

should actually read

if (tWH = tHW) then

It really does produce the same string, I wasn't trying to rig the results.

Thanks

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macmail at gmail.com> wrote:

> Monte,
>
> Very interesting, but you've made a mistake as well. Both your code and
> Peter's produce exactly the same string, there is no exponential growth.
>
> I created the following script:
>
> on mouseUp
>   -- yes it's not a million cause I couldn't wait
>    put 100000 into tRepeats
>
>    put the long seconds into tStart
>    put "Hello" into tHW
>    repeat tRepeats times
>
>       put tHW & "!" into tHW
>    end repeat
>    put the long seconds into tEnd
>    put tEnd - tStart into tTimeTaken
>    put "INTO took " &tTimeTaken & cr into msg
>
>    put the long seconds into tStart
>    put "Hello" into tWH
>    repeat tRepeats times
>       put "!" after tWH
>
>    end repeat
>    put the long seconds into tEnd
>    put tEnd - tStart into tTimeTaken
>    put "AFTER took " &tTimeTaken & cr after msg
>    if (tWH = tWH) then
>       put "TRUE" after msg
>    else
>       put "FALSE" after msg
>    end if
> end mouseUp
>
> On my machine both strings end up equal. This appears to be like 'repeat
> for each' which we've all learnt is generally much faster than any other
> repeat loop. For reasons I certainly can't explain, LC seems to handle 'put
> after' exponentially faster than 'put into'.
>
> As Peter cautioned, speed comparisons are fraught with comparing Apples
> with Cheeses, but in this case, it made me look into V8 and I see, just
> like SC and MC learnt a long time ago, a better optimised engine makes a
> world of difference. It also emphasis what Richard Gaskin keeps telling us,
> that if speed matters, you'll need to skin the cat a couple of different
> ways to actually determine which IS the fastest LC code.
>
> I've now amended my Google Spreadsheet to indicate LC and JavaScript are
> similar in speed.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Monte Goulding <
> monte at sweattechnologies.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually the original code was adding the string and ! To itself so it
>> grew exponentially rather than linearly. The final string would have been
>> very very very long...
>>
>> --
>> M E R Goulding
>> Software development services
>>
>> mergExt - There's an external for that!
>>
>> On 05/06/2013, at 6:07 PM, Peter W A Wood <peterwawood at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks. It does indeed take only 165 milliseconds (on my machine). I
>> guess that does re-inforce my warning of the dangers of such comparisons :-)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
>
>