Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Kevin Miller]

On 21/9/06 22:37, "Richard Gaskin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> I believe the revGeneral library is always included. There is no option
>> to turn it off, which is usually okay, since the majority of Rev users
>> need at least some part of that library.
> 
> What a strange design decision.
> 
> I've helped more than a few people diagnose errors in standalones that
> weren't evident in the IDE because of the additional objects being added
> to their first card.  Such errors are particularly hard to pin down
> because the objects don't exist in the IDE, which is the only
> environment that can run a debugger.
> 
> I can see having an "Include revGeneral" option turned on by default,
> but preventing people from doing anything else seems really odd.
> 
> One more reason to improve MC IDE for the masses:  it's the only way to
> make truly native Rev apps. :)

To suggest that a standalone is not a truly native Revolution application
because it contains Revolution code libraries seems nonsensical.  Does that
mean that a standalone containing libURL is not a truly native Revolution
application?

There is no such library as "revGeneral".  You may be thinking of the
revCommon library.  If this is the library you mean, it seems unlikely that
this library would be responsible for a drop in performance given that the
only system message it intercepts is mouseDoubleUp - sending a mouseUp to
objects, in the same way the MetaCard IDE has done since the dawn of time.
All the other message handlers in there are there to support those terms we
define as part of the language definition and include in the dictionary.
Basics such as revCopyFolder.  Its quite a compact library.  The bigger
libraries are all optional.

Whatever is causing the performance difference is unlikely to be that
library.  But if it is, well its like any other part of the product and
could contain bugs along with the engine, the IDE, the OS, a database
driver, etc.

Errors introduced by including objects on the first card of a standalone are
a pain, I fully agree.  That original design decision historically stems
from the need to deliver extensive functionality libraries (today in
constant use in the vast majority of standalone applications out there), and
not having control over the engine and therefore capability to create an
official place to put them.  Doing this better will come about as we improve
the overall product architecture and create a place for this sort of thing.
It won't come about by us hacking in a quick fix that will doubtless
introduce its own quirkiness.  Relative to the time you have already waited
for this, it won't be much longer.

In the mean time, rather than spending time being surprised that we would
attempt to deliver feature libraries with useful functionality for our user
base to include in standalones, we would as ever welcome constructive
suggestions on how to continue progress on making what we have work better
and more reliably.

Kind regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.runrev.com/
Runtime Revolution - User-Centric Development Tools

___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Ken Ray]

On 9/22/06 4:13 PM, "Wilhelm Sanke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Applying this I get 13 front and back scripts running in the stack and
> nothing of this in the standalone (in the standalone only my script
> library "clib" and the calling button for listing the back and
> frontscripts are listed).

Well, I created a simple standalone with Rev 2.7.4 with just a button that
spat the scripts out, and left the "Search for required inclusions" radio
button on, and it inserted no frontscripts, no libraries, and 2 backscripts:
revLibURL and revCommon.

Just contributing to the discussion...

:-)


Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Richard Gaskin]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
When I remove these backscripts and frontscripts in the stack no change 
of the slower Rev-IDE speed is effected. So the slower performance in 
Rev must be caused by other scripts.-


Very odd. If the problem is indeed related to Rev's standalones, then I 
would imagine there should be a measurable difference with just about 
any of us who switch between IDEs.


Have any of the rest of you seen performance differences between your 
standalones built with MC and those built with Rev?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FourthWorld.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Wilhelm Sanke]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Richard Gaskin wrote:

It might be helpful to de-standalone it to take a look at exactly 
what's been included.


Once upon a time someone posted the info needed to strip the 
executable from the stack -- anyone make a utility for that?



In my own collected archives I found this script:

"on mouseUp
 answer file "Standalone"
 if it is "cancel" then exit to top
 put url ("binfile:"&it) into tStack
 repeat forever
   -- there's more than one stackfile in there which isinteresting
   put offset("#!/bin/sh",char 10 to -1 of tStack) into tOff
   if tOff = 0 then exit repeat
   put char tOff+9 to -1 of tStack into tStack
 end repeat
 ask file "Stack"
 if it is "cancel" then exit to top
  set the fileType to "RevoRSTK"
 put tStack into url ("binfile:"&it)
 answer "conversion finished" with "OK"
end mouseUp"

This, however, (on Windows) provides me with an extracted stack that is 
flagged as "corrupted", even if I comment out the line about the 
filetype which is probably meant only for MacOS(?)


A simpler diagnostic might be to have your app spit out a list of 
frontScripts, backScripts, and libraries, something like this:


on LogScripts
  put the frontScripts &cr& the stacksInUse &cr& the backScripts \
in url ("file:ScriptList.txt")
end LogScripts



Applying this I get 13 front and back scripts running in the stack and 
nothing of this in the standalone (in the standalone only my script 
library "clib" and the calling button for listing the back and 
frontscripts are listed).


When I remove these backscripts and frontscripts in the stack no change 
of the slower Rev-IDE speed is effected. So the slower performance in 
Rev must be caused by other scripts.-


Unfortunately I cannot follow your other suggestions at the moment 
(startloggingMessages etc.) because I really need to concentrate on 
other things at the moment (and not only, but also, because of that 
voluminous doctoral dissertation on my desk).


I will continue the discussion in about a week and thank all of you in 
the meantime for your interest in this thread.


Best regards,

Wilhelm Sanke

___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[J. Landman Gay]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote:

why should anybody refer to stack "home" in a standalone?


In a standalone, the mainstack becomes "home" and the term "home" 
becomes synonymous with the name of the mainstack, so you can use 
either. This doesn't answer the rest of your question, of course.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Dave Cragg]

On 22 Sep 2006, at 16:10, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:


In case my comments were felt to be offensive,


Not in any way. It was only because your comments were so interesting  
that I felt inspired to reply. It's not often we get a thread on  
something so close to home.


Coincidentally, there was a TV show about Nero on the BBC last night.  
(No bagpipes or Rev libraries were featured.)


Cheers
Dave
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Richard Gaskin]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Apart from the parts of my own scripts that are unprotected I see a lot 
of extra code, some of which may belong to CRevGeneral

...
Maybe the last example could be one of the culprits that slow down 
execution (?)


and such as

"on mouseDoubleUp pButtonNo, pTarget
--not been handled
--pTarget set in suppress messages frontscript
if pTarget is empty
then put the long id of the target into pTarget
put revTargetStack(pTarget) into tStack
put the defaultStack into tDefaultStack
set the defaultStack to tStack
if the mode of stack tStack is not 0
then click at the clickLoc
set the defaultStack to tDefaultStack
end mouseDoubleUp"


Good sluething, Wilhelm.

It might be helpful to de-standalone it to take a look at exactly what's 
been included.


Once upon a time someone posted the info needed to strip the executable 
from the stack -- anyone make a utility for that?


A simpler diagnostic might be to have your app spit out a list of 
frontScripts, backScripts, and libraries, something like this:


on LogScripts
  put the frontScripts &cr& the stacksInUse &cr& the backScripts \
in url ("file:ScriptList.txt")
end LogScripts

It might also be helpful to log messages within your standalone using 
the messageHandled message.  This is undocumented, but to have that 
message sent you first turn on the messageMessages global property, then 
get your list of handlers:


on StartLoggingMessages
  set the messageMessages to true
end StartLoggingMessages

In a library somewhere you can include this:

on messageHandled
  global gMessageLog
  put the params && the long name of the target &cr after gMessageLog
  pass messageHandled
end messageHandled

And to dump it just use:

on CloseMessageLog
  global gMessageLog
  put gMessageLog into url ("file:MessageLog.txt")
end CloseMessageLog

These scripts are off the top of my head, so please forgive an errors.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 ___
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FourthWorld.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Wilhelm Sanke]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Richard Gaskin wrote:

That leaves us with the possibility that Rev is including some of its 
scripts even when you tell it not to.


When you pour through the standalone with a raw editor do you see any 
Rev scripts in there?



and Jacqueline had confirmed in the meantime:


I believe the revGeneral library is always included.



Yes, I do see that in the Windows standalone built with Rev 2.7.3 -gm1.

Apart from the parts of my own scripts that are unprotected I see a lot 
of extra code, some of which may belong to CRevGeneral, but other 
scripts certainly could not belong there, like:


"set the mainStack of the topStack to "Home"
modal "Stack Properties"
if it is not empty then
set the cursor to watch
topLevel it
end ifgo to prev card ùA ûA ÖA üA ïA‘? AB B" etc.

The above is definitely not *my* code - and why should anybody refer to 
stack "home" in a standalone?


Other functions seem to belong to CRevGeneral like

- "function revPoints pGraphic"

- "function revApplescriptFull pfunction,pSrc,pDest"

Why should this be included in a Windows standalone?

- "on revMail pTo, pCC, pSubject, pBody"

- "setProp cREVGeneral[pWhichProp] pWhichProfile
put the long id of the target into tTarget
put tTarget into tTargetLongID
if pWhichProp is not "profile" and pWhichProp is not "inLineImages" and 
pWhichProp is not "virtualWidth" and pWhichProp is not "virtualHeight" 
and pWhichProp is not "breakPoints" then pass cREVGeneral"

etc.

Maybe the last example could be one of the culprits that slow down 
execution (?)


and such as

"on mouseDoubleUp pButtonNo, pTarget
--not been handled
--pTarget set in suppress messages frontscript
if pTarget is empty
then put the long id of the target into pTarget
put revTargetStack(pTarget) into tStack
put the defaultStack into tDefaultStack
set the defaultStack to tStack
if the mode of stack tStack is not 0
then click at the clickLoc
set the defaultStack to tDefaultStack
end mouseDoubleUp"

Best regards,

Wilhelm Sanke






___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Wilhelm Sanke]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Dave Cragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:

The people of Edinburgh and the area to the south east did fight with  
the Angles of Northumbria. But these were neither Picts nor Scots.  
They were Britons who spoke what today would be recognised as Welsh.  
Interestingly, these battles are more remembered in Welsh history  
than in Scottish history. (Also, some people think Arthur was the  
leader of a tribe of Scottish Britons, and that he fought against  
both Angles and Picts.) Eventually, the Angles dominated south east  
Scotland and the Scots and Picts dominated the remainder of the  
country. The use of "Welsh" in Scotland died out.



The database I based my judgment on was small, and I had warned you that 
only about 99% of my story was true. There were so many different 
kingdoms or territories governed by warlords at that time that one can 
easily become confused.


But I think the general picture is true.

It is rumoured that there are many missing libraries of that period,  
thought to be hidden in southern Scotland somewhere. It may be that  
one of these libraries has got buried in the Rev IDE. (Some of those  
scripts look like Welsh to me.)


I also read somehwere that the Romans introduced the bagpipes to  
Scotland, but left before they taught people how to tune them.


Cheers
Dave 



It could well be that the Romans instroduced the instrument to Scotland, 
but did not particularly like the sounds coming out of it.

A quote from Wikipedia:
"Nero is reported to have said he would play them (bagpipe is plural in 
Latin) in public as a penance for not winning a poetry contest".-


In case my comments were felt to be offensive, I apologize to the 
Scottish branch of my family, who are however living more near Glasgow.


Cheers,

Wilhelm


___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[J. Landman Gay]

Dave Cragg wrote:

I also read somehwere that the Romans introduced the bagpipes to 
Scotland, but left before they taught people how to tune them.


 I have always wondered about those bagpipes. Thanks for 
clearing this up. :)


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[J. Landman Gay]

Richard Gaskin wrote:

What could revGeneral possibly be doing that affects the execution of 
scripts that don't call any of its handlers?


Probably nothing; I only mentioned it because you were wondering if any 
libraries were included in app builds. But if a script doesn't call any 
handlers in the library, then of course it wouldn't interfere.


What I'm fuzzy on, and don't have time to look up, is whether there are 
any handlers in there that might be called automatically; for example, 
if it catches any system messages and then passes them on. It might, but 
I haven't checked.




We just might have stumbled onto Rev's tech support holy grail: if 
revGeneral turns out to be such an unruly citizen, invoking its own 
handlers independent of the developer's control, the implications for 
other bugs reported by developers and their end-users are potentially 
quite broad.


Probably not wise to make assumptions before we find out. It might be 
something entirely different.




But if it turns out that revGeneral operates in a polite, clean way that 
doesn't unexpectedly alter normal script execution, then what could be 
causing Wilhelm's performance drop?


Still a mystery; I don't know.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Dave Cragg]

On 21 Sep 2006, at 20:40, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:



The Roman emperor Hadrian had built his Hadrian's wall across  
England from Newcastle to Carlisle because he did not like bagpipe  
music and kilts. When the Roman empire broke down in the 4th  
century, the revolutionaries from Edinburgh again annoyed the  
Celtic population South of the Hadrian's wall. Then the British  
Celts asked two former Roman mercenaries, namely Hengist and Horsa,  
to help them against the Scots. Hengist and Horsa happened to  
belong to the Anglian tribe in the land "Angeln" and asked their  
relatives and more tribesmen over to Britain. The Saxons - South of  
the land "Angeln" - and the Jutes to the North joined them and  
established their kingdoms (and languages) in the new country. The  
last Celtic king to fight against this invasion was the legendary  
King Arthur from Tintagel in Cornwall.


At the risk of going way off topic...

Wilhelm, I agree that the origins of the speed issue probably lie in  
Edinburgh, and I'd be happy to see you and your Angeln friends sort  
this out. But the people whose troublesome invasions Hengist and  
Hrosa were invited to resist were Picts and not Scots. The Scots had  
not yet arrived in Britain in great numbers at that time.


The people of Edinburgh and the area to the south east did fight with  
the Angles of Northumbria. But these were neither Picts nor Scots.  
They were Britons who spoke what today would be recognised as Welsh.  
Interestingly, these battles are more remembered in Welsh history  
than in Scottish history. (Also, some people think Arthur was the  
leader of a tribe of Scottish Britons, and that he fought against  
both Angles and Picts.) Eventually, the Angles dominated south east  
Scotland and the Scots and Picts dominated the remainder of the  
country. The use of "Welsh" in Scotland died out.


It is rumoured that there are many missing libraries of that period,  
thought to be hidden in southern Scotland somewhere. It may be that  
one of these libraries has got buried in the Rev IDE. (Some of those  
scripts look like Welsh to me.)


I also read somehwere that the Romans introduced the bagpipes to  
Scotland, but left before they taught people how to tune them.


Cheers
Dave 
___

metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Richard Gaskin]

J. Landman Gay wrote:
I believe the revGeneral library is always included. There is no option 
to turn it off, which is usually okay, since the majority of Rev users 
need at least some part of that library.


I've recovered from the shock of this discovery, but now find myself 
left with a critical question:


What could revGeneral possibly be doing that affects the execution of 
scripts that don't call any of its handlers?


We just might have stumbled onto Rev's tech support holy grail: if 
revGeneral turns out to be such an unruly citizen, invoking its own 
handlers independent of the developer's control, the implications for 
other bugs reported by developers and their end-users are potentially 
quite broad.


But if it turns out that revGeneral operates in a polite, clean way that 
doesn't unexpectedly alter normal script execution, then what could be 
causing Wilhelm's performance drop?


Such a strange mystery

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Richard Gaskin]

J. Landman Gay wrote:

Richard Gaskin wrote:

That leaves us with the possibility that Rev is including some of its 
scripts even when you tell it not to.


I believe the revGeneral library is always included. There is no option 
to turn it off, which is usually okay, since the majority of Rev users 
need at least some part of that library.


What a strange design decision.

I've helped more than a few people diagnose errors in standalones that 
weren't evident in the IDE because of the additional objects being added 
to their first card.  Such errors are particularly hard to pin down 
because the objects don't exist in the IDE, which is the only 
environment that can run a debugger.


I can see having an "Include revGeneral" option turned on by default, 
but preventing people from doing anything else seems really odd.


One more reason to improve MC IDE for the masses:  it's the only way to 
make truly native Rev apps. :)


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[J. Landman Gay]

Richard Gaskin wrote:

That leaves us with the possibility that Rev is including some of its 
scripts even when you tell it not to.


I believe the revGeneral library is always included. There is no option 
to turn it off, which is usually okay, since the majority of Rev users 
need at least some part of that library.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Re: Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Richard Gaskin]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had 
written (Subject: Re: [ANN]: Imagedata Toolkit (beta) released):



Wilhelm Sanke wrote:

>> (Remark for Metacard list members only:
>> For optimal performance use the Metacard IDE. When run in the 
Revolution

>> IDE some filters need up to 45% more processing time than in MC. This
>> also holds when you create a standalone.)

How could that be possible when they both use the same engine?



The Rev IDE is a slowly evolving environment with about 20 times more 
code than in the MC IDE. Given the additional intricacy and 
interrelatedness of this code it is quite natural that speed and other 
problems occur. Some of my earlier stacks - the discussion about this 
and examples are still to be found on my website (I will remove them 
soon) - would not even start in the Rev IDE or crash or could not be 
inspected by the application browser or property inspectors because 
these tools were unable to handle larger number of objects in a stack. 
The Rev IDE indeed has considerably improved over time, but IMHO has 
still a while to go to become a reliable and more user-friendly 
application.


As to standalones, apparently something is being added to them in Rev 
what is happily missing in Metacard.


So it would seem.

Logically speaking, the same engine with the same scripts should produce 
equivalent performance.  I don't dispute the results, so there must be 
some difference here.


If you're certain the engine version is the same when building 
standalones in both MC and Rev, then we can rule that out.


That leaves us with the possibility that Rev is including some of its 
scripts even when you tell it not to.


When you pour through the standalone with a raw editor do you see any 
Rev scripts in there?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
metacard mailing list
metacard@lists.runrev.com
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard

Speed differences between MC and Rev and the origin of the English language

[Wilhelm Sanke]

Home again and back to work as I announced 11 days ago. There is a 
350-pages doctoral dissertation on my desk - a study about internet use 
in schools - which I need to assess and grade during the next two weeks, 
but I resume paying some attention to my imagedata stuff and MC.


My two vacations this summer were spent in parts of Germany where 
language minorities still fight against assimilation. Last week I 
visited the Sorbian area near Poland where a small number of people 
still speak their old Slavonic language which is also still used in 
schools. In July I spent a quiet time in the northernmost county of 
Germany, called "land Angeln" since 2000 years - South of the Danish 
border - from where the English language and especially the name for the 
"English" language originated.
I had taken my laptop with me to the land "Angeln" to work on my 
"imagedate toolkit", but in the first night the harddisk crashed and I 
had two weeks time to attend to other matters and study the local 
culture and what had remained from old times; additionaly I consulted my 
memory and later Wikipedia and my old textbooks. As you all on this list 
are more or less familiar with the English language it will not hurt to 
share my collected insights about its origin:


The short story of the development - and about 99% of this is true - 
runs like this (and the Scots are also instrumental here, if only in a 
somewhat negative way):


The Roman emperor Hadrian had built his Hadrian's wall across England 
from Newcastle to Carlisle because he did not like bagpipe music and 
kilts. When the Roman empire broke down in the 4th century, the 
revolutionaries from Edinburgh again annoyed the Celtic population South 
of the Hadrian's wall. Then the British Celts asked two former Roman 
mercenaries, namely Hengist and Horsa, to help them against the Scots. 
Hengist and Horsa happened to belong to the Anglian tribe in the land 
"Angeln" and asked their relatives and more tribesmen over to Britain. 
The Saxons - South of the land "Angeln" - and the Jutes to the North 
joined them and established their kingdoms (and languages) in the new 
country. The last Celtic king to fight against this invasion was the 
legendary King Arthur from Tintagel in Cornwall.


Later other waves of immigrants came over to England from the same 
places where the Anglians, the Saxons, and the Jutes originally lived. 
From the eight century on the Vikings made frequents inroads  and then 
settled in England (the famous "Hägar" was one of them). In about 10 
miles distance from where I spent my July vacation is "Haithabu", the 
former trade center of the Vikings in the land "Angeln" (a place similar 
to Sutton Hoo in England, where big Viking ships have also been found). 
In the 11th century after Hastings the Normans, which were originally 
Vikings, too, came over who had made a detour through the Normandy in 
France, got civilized there and had learned some French and French 
cuisine in the meantime. Then even later more Northern Germanic tribes 
invaded, especially Jutes (Danes) who established the "Danelag" in 
England. Knud the Great was at the same time King of England and 
Angeln/Denmark/Norway. All these Germanic tribes spoke closely related 
Germanic dialects very similar to the language documented in "Beowulf", 
the oldest extant example of poetic "Old-English" language. 
Interestingly, the venue of the saga told in Beowulf, this center piece 
of Old-English literature, is the Southern area of Scandinavia.  

By the time of Chaucer the Anglian/English language had evolved as the 
widely spoken and officially used means of communication in the new 
"England". It is an astonishing fact of language development that the 
term "Anglian/English" , derived from the small land-Angeln region of 
continental Europe, finally prevailed as the name for one the most 
important languages and the "lingua franca" for international 
communication of today. At least the Saxon part of this language 
development is honored when we sometimes also speak of Anglo-Saxons and 
Anglo-Saxon languages.--


==

Now to the speed differences:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> had 
written (Subject: Re: [ANN]: Imagedata Toolkit (beta) released):



Wilhelm Sanke wrote:

>> (Remark for Metacard list members only:
>> For optimal performance use the Metacard IDE. When run in the 
Revolution

>> IDE some filters need up to 45% more processing time than in MC. This
>> also holds when you create a standalone.)

How could that be possible when they both use the same engine?



The Rev IDE is a slowly evolving environment with about 20 times more 
code than in the MC IDE. Given the additional intricacy and 
interrelatedness of this code it is quite natural that speed and other 
problems occur. Some of my earlier stacks - the discussion about this 
and examples are still to be found on my website (I will remove them 
soon) - would not even start in t