I find that by declaring variables the number of runtime errors due to
typos are greatly reduced, I therefore prefer the strictness of C++
>datatypes you use, which slows development down. Most compiled languages
>require you to explicitly state the type when creating variables. (C even
Enriqu
Kerry Thompson wrote:
>Instead, we're stuck with 1980s technology--the same clunky, slow
>interpreter that was used in old-style BASIC, like I was writing in 1982.
I started with Basica in 1982, too. When I think of my long travel through
the programming languages that I learned more or less de
>A full compiler doesn't really seem like the way to go.
The more discussion I see, the more I tend to agree. There are Lingo
features that would be difficult or impossible to compile, especially "do".
However...
>Being able to take a script member & export/compile it out as an new type
>of
Sorry Kerry (et al).
A full compiler doesn't really seem like the way to go.
I have to agree w/Brennan's suggestion.
Being able to take a script member & export/compile it out as an new
type of 'Xtra' would be a great feature!
It's also something they could PUT ON THE BOX & in the PR RELEASE!
long life ahead, even with the drawbacks - and
then again - every development tool has it's own set of them.
And assembler sucks !!! ;)
Chris.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Brennan Young
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:21 PM
To: [E
Kerry Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> I don't understand why this isn't at the top of Macromedia's list of
> upgrades--there is no other single thing they could do to increase
> performance more, at least for Lingo-heavy apps.
>
> At the beginning of a project, the Powers That Be make a d
>I kinda did this thing too see how fast (or slow) lingo really is.
>I think i've got my answer
>I hope the MM folks are planning to do something about that.
Here I go again... (continuation of a rant from another list)
There *is* a way to speed Lingo up--a compiler. Your code is an excelle
>>Thanks for letting us pick over your code!
I kinda did this thing too see how fast (or slow) lingo really is.
I think i've got my answer
I hope the MM folks are planning to do something about that.
If anyone wants to use this code, feel free to do so, it's fun to play
with...
Thanks for y
"Chris Aernoudt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> - --Ok, here goes
> - --I've got some other scripts attached to be able to do a clickzoom, but
> that's not important to the drawing
Just commenting out the 'setPixel' line, I can see that the script itself is
very slow. At first I thought you could o
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Colin Holgate
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: a faster way to draw than using setpixel ??
>Is lingo really that slow - or is it the speed difference between CBrush
and
>setPixel that makes the
I'll answer the other part of your question. There is no speed
difference between different type of scripts.
When trying to evaluate speed of execution of different methods, the
standard approach is to build a quick test and compare. For your
question, I tried this:
on speedTest
startTim
>Is lingo really that slow - or is it the speed difference between CBrush and
>setPixel that makes the major difference??
Have you tried commenting out the setpixel line? Then you would know
how much of the time is setpixel, and how much is Lingo. Any chance
of posting the code somewhere?
[To
]On Behalf Of
Jakob Hede Madsen
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 12:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a faster way to draw than using setpixel ??
At 10:24 +0200 2001_07_03, Chris Aernoudt wrote:
>Is there a faster way to plot an image than using setpixel??
Not that I know of, but remember
At 10:24 +0200 2001_07_03, Chris Aernoudt wrote:
>Is there a faster way to plot an image than using setpixel??
Not that I know of, but remember to draw to an unattached imageObject
rather than directly into a member or the image of a member. Also you
might get speed increases by using an 8 bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
