Also, I caught a seg-fault yesterday, after having left a DrRacket 7.9 BC open for a couple of days on a basic servlet. I'll see if happens again with 8.0.0.x while I use it.
Dex On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 11:08:00 PM UTC+2 Dexter Lagan wrote: > I updated window.rkt, and it fixed the scrolling problem. It's exactly > as it was with 7.9. Thanks! > One last thing, I noticed that a small window appears top-left corner of > the screen before the full DrRacket window opens since 8.0.0.1x : > > [image: small-window.PNG] > > I had trouble capturing it, as it only appears a few seconds. > > Cheers, > > Dex > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 12:24:13 PM UTC+2 Dexter Lagan wrote: > >> Thanks for the info, I'll try updating window.rkt and report back. >> >> What surprises me is that scrolling by keeping the mouse button down >> while hovering on the scrollbar is fast and smooth, while using a >> two-finger gesture is erratic and choppy (on top of the direction-change >> delay). I wonder if there would be a way to map the scrolling gesture >> (which might be bound to the mouse wheel handler), to the scrollbar >> instead. If one could do this, the scrolling would smooth no matter which >> input device is used. >> >> When it comes to executable file size, I understand that there's a >> balance between file loading time and decompression time. >> Intuitively, for local machines - especially with today's NVMe's - it >> would make sense to generate larger files, with less compression for best >> overall performance. However, as soon as one runs an executable file from a >> network drive (say, over 100Mbits ethernet), file size might be directly >> correlated to startup time, accounting for network transfer time. I don't >> know if these ideas are in consideration, and I understand you have other >> priorities. I'm available to help with benchmarks, debugging and any other >> task you might find useful. >> >> As always, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to answer with such >> detail and care. >> >> Dex >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:54 AM Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> >>> At Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:29:22 -0700 (PDT), Dexter Lagan wrote: >>> > I installed the latest build, and it does start. Generated >>> executable is >>> > 80MB vs 32MB for 7.9 BC, about 10MB more than 8.0 release. >>> >>> That difference is again related to the compilation paths, but this >>> time the likely result is that the v8.1 release will be larger in the >>> way you saw here. >>> >>> In the cross-compilation path that the release builds use, there was an >>> unintended layer of compression. (I noticed the size difference before, >>> but had not yet investigated.) Checking that again, if the extra layer >>> is used, the 10% or so savings in file size causes a 5% decompression >>> slowdown for loading. Compressing just the code, meanwhile, makes load >>> times faster on machines that I tried. So, I think the current >>> (non-cross) default is still the best choice for most situations, and >>> I'll adjust cross-compilation to match. >>> >>> We can make the extra layer of compression an option for someone who >>> needs to minimize file size. But a more relevant effect may be the >>> existing configure-time option to compress boot files... >>> >>> >>> Compressing embedded boot files would save 30 MB, which would make a >>> big difference in your case. Compressed boot files take 20-40ms longer >>> to load on a typical machine, which is significant relative to the >>> minimal load time, but it's very little time in many situations. >>> >>> Boot-file compression was already an option for the `configure` way of >>> building on Unix (but the option had rotted; now fixed). I've updated >>> the MSVC build to recognize a `PLT_BOOTFILE_COMPRESS` environment >>> variable to enable boot-file compression when building that way. So, it >>> will be easier to build Racket with compressed boot files --- but you >>> would have to build Racket yourself. >>> >>> It may be that compressed boot files make sense as the default on >>> Windows. I'm starting to lean in that direction, but I'm not sure, and >>> I haven't changed the default for now. >>> >>> > I understand that there's a difference between bytecode and compiled >>> > binary size with CS, but I'm not certain if we're talking about the >>> Racket >>> > distribution itself, or generated executables. Is there any hope to >>> > eventually get closer to BC's executable size with CS? >>> >>> Compressing boot files brings the size of the Racket CS executable/DLL >>> itself closer to Racket BC --- more like a factor of 2 instead of a >>> factor of 10 --- and that turns out to be almost half of the size in >>> your case. But the more code you add in terms of embedded ".zo" files, >>> the more the size difference will approach a factor of 2 overall; I >>> don't see a route to big improvements there. >>> >>> > The raco demod option seemed to do miracles on previous versions, but >>> > never worked on gracket / gui programs for me. >>> >>> Restoring `raco demod` has been on my list, and I may get to that soon, >>> but probably not before v8.1. It may be possible to improve `raco >>> demod` to support `dynamic-require`d pieces like the platform-specific >>> backends in `racket/gui`. >>> >>> > Also, somehow touchpad scrolling has degraded since 7.9 BC (which >>> was >>> > decent, and even had momentum). If I scroll downwards, then upwards, >>> it >>> > keeps going down for another 1 second before switching direction, and >>> > momentum is no longer simulated. If I use the scrollbar, it scrolls >>> fast >>> > and smooth, with no direction problem. >>> >>> I don't know what happened there. Version 8.0 included a change for >>> handling scroll-wheel events, but I don't think that's the same kind of >>> event as touchpad scrolling. You could try changing `(* wheel-scale >>> amt)` in "share/pkgs/gui-lib/mred/private/wx/win32/window.rkt" back to >>> just `amt` to make sure that change isn't the reason. >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5a8a5e07-695a-4ee5-a0e7-132c81cfec78n%40googlegroups.com.
