Oops, right, the swf9 should be the faster one.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Donald Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henry,
>
> I hope you have the headings reversed - looks like SWF9 takes longer...
>
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Henry Minsky wrote:
>
> > So, working around that compiler bug
> > <canvas width="1000" height="600">
> > <handler name="oninit">
> > var i;
> > i = 1000;
> > var starttime;
> > starttime = getTimer();
> > while (i > 0) {
> > i--;
> > new lz.view(canvas, {x: i, y: i});
> > }
> >
> > new lz.text(canvas,{x:0, y:20, text: 'elapsed time:
> > '+getTimer()});
> > var ctime;
> > ctime = getTimer() - starttime;
> > new lz.text(canvas,{x:0, y:30, text: ('initialize new views
> > time: '+ctime )} );
> > </handler>
> > </canvas>
> >
> >
> >
> > SWF8
> > total elapsed time 137 msec
> > creating views: 97 msec
> >
> > SWF9
> > total elapsed time 450 msec
> > creating views: 270 msec
> >
> > So it looks like a speedup of about three from swf8 to swf9 for view
> > creation.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Henry Minsky
> > Software Architect
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> --
>
> Don Anderson
> Java/C/C++, Berkeley DB, systems consultant
>
> voice: 617-547-7881
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www: http://www.ddanderson.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
