Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
>
> For an interesting read on security and high level languages, this is fun:
>
> http://m.bacarella.com/papers/secsoft/html
Great article -- thanks for posting that!
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any databa
| Maybe we need a new name for what Transcript does.
|
| Transcript pre-processes scripts into pointer-based bytecode, which
| generally outperforms purely interpreted xTalk by anywhere from several
| times to a few orders of magnitude.
|
Maybe? This is an excellent clarification. If MC is s
Richard:
Maybe we need a new name for what Transcript does.
Transcript pre-processes scripts into pointer-based bytecode, which
generally outperforms purely interpreted xTalk by anywhere from several
times to a few orders of magnitude.
What about 'pre-processed'? 'Tokenised' sounds like 'Notion
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
> I think it has come to light that MC holds it's own with compiled
> languages. That was where this whole thing began, I was explaining
> to Swami that MC is not a compiled language, then Scott kinda said, so
> what, there is not that much difference between compiled a
|
| Message: 1
| Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:39:01 -0700
| Subject: RE: the large file challenge
| From: John Vokey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| To be fair: most of metacard is coded in metatalk; it is a
| boot-strapped language, much like m
To be fair: most of metacard is coded in metatalk; it is a
boot-strapped language, much like many of the TILs (threaded
interpreted languages) of yesteryears (e.g., forth, apl).
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 10:01 AM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| MC, as well, is also coded in C, so in many
Sadhunathan Nadesan a écrit :
>
> Ok, here are the results so far,
>
> bash
> Sun Nov 10 13:01:59 PST 2002
> 17333
> Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
>
> pascal
> Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
> 17333
> Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
>
> andu's metacard
> Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
> 29623
> Sun Nov
| Actually, this says more about your specific implementation of the algorithm
| and/or the quality of your compiler than it does about the relative speed
| merits of any given language. As in your bash example, the bash shell
| actually calls functions from libraries of well written highly optimiz
> Here's the latest round of times
>
>
> bash 1:44
> pascal 2:04
> C 2:28
> MC 2:10
>
> goodness, C is slowest of all?!?
Actually, this says more about your specific implementation of the algorithm
and/or the quality of your compiler than it does about the relative speed
merits of any given lan
| >>> So ! MC as far so fast than Pascal ! Is'nt it great ? And, thanks again
| >>> to Scott, for that too !
| >>
| >> It's enough to make a Java programmer cry. ;)
| >
| > Java ? Help me to remember... Are you speaking, Richard, in about this
| > dead marketed toy that crashes any time he search
All right... I tweaked a little more outside of email.
For accuracy in the case where "mystic_mouse" occurs multiple times on one line, uncomment the line:
"add offset(return, thisChunk, theOffset) to theOffset"
This just skips to the next line whenever a match is found.
This should run faster t
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My hunch is that reading for lines is slower than reading a
> specified number of chars, since with lines it needs to evaluate
> each incoming character to determine if it's a return -- Scott, am I
> right or should they be about the
For mine... if you are not concerned so much about the exact number then change:
"read from file the_file for numLines lines"
to
"read from file the_file for numLines"
for a big speedup.
and
up the chunkSize to something closer to your available memory, for example (8*1024*1024) = 8MB.
As for
--On Sunday, November 10, 2002 13:21:04 -0800 Sadhunathan Nadesan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here's another try for whatever it's worth. I tested it on a file with 7000
lines of about 800k and it takes less then a sec:
on startup
put 0 into tCount
put "mystic_mouse" into tWord
put empty in
Sadhunathan Nadesan a écrit :
>
> I got this suggestion from Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> repeat
> read from stdin until "mystic_mouse"
> if the result is not empty then add 1 to the_counter -- found it
> else exit repeat -- encountered end of file, no more occurrenc
Sadhunathan Nadesan a écrit :
>
> Ok, here are the results so far,
>
> bash
> Sun Nov 10 13:01:59 PST 2002
> 17333
> Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
>
> pascal
> Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
> 17333
> Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
>
> andu's metacard
> Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
> 29623
> Sun Nov
Ok, here are the results so far,
bash
Sun Nov 10 13:01:59 PST 2002
17333
Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
pascal
Sun Nov 10 13:03:43 PST 2002
17333
Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
andu's metacard
Sun Nov 10 13:05:47 PST 2002
29623
Sun Nov 10 13:08:10 PST 2002
pierre's metacard
Sun Nov 10 13:08:10 PST
I got this suggestion from Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
repeat
read from stdin until "mystic_mouse"
if the result is not empty then add 1 to the_counter -- found it
else exit repeat -- encountered end of file, no more occurrences
end repeat
put the_counter
But I was no
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
> By golly, that would be I think the "conventional wisdom" alright!
>
> Another myth goes by the wayside? :-)
>
> Of course, now the C programmers will probably come out of
> the closet.
Not if Tom Pittman is around. I've never seen objective data on the
subject,
| > So that is 1:53 for bash, 2:04 for pascal, and 2:19 for MC. darn good!
|
| But golly, I thought an "interpreted" language like MetaTalk was supposed to
| be slow, certainly much slower than compiled Pascal.
|
| :)
|
By golly, that would be I think the "conventional wisdom" alright!
Anothe
| ># repeat for each line this_line in the_text
| ># if (not eof) then
| ># if (this_line contains "mystic_mouse") then
| ># put the_counter + 1 into the_counter
| ># end if
| ># end if
| ># end repeat
|
| > close file the_file
| Allo Sadhu,
|
|
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
> |
> | One last note:
> |
> | Be careful of using
> |
> | If you do not read for "lines", you run the risk of cutting a line in half
> on
> | the spot where your magic string occurs.
> |
> | So always use
> |
> | HTH.
> | Brian
> |
>
> Good point. For this pa
|
| One last note:
|
| Be careful of using
|
| If you do not read for "lines", you run the risk of cutting a line in half on
| the spot where your magic string occurs.
|
| So always use
|
| HTH.
| Brian
|
Good point. For this particular use of the
program a close count is
|
| I'm pretty sure the problem with speed here is from reading in the entire
| file.
| Unless of course you have enough free RAM- but that's hard to imagine when
| the files are 300MB+.
|
| How about this, which you can adjust to read any given number of lines at a
| time.
| Try it with 10, 1
| If we're allowed to read the whole thing into RAM and the goal is the count
| the occurences of the string "mystic_mouse", then to optimize speed we can
| just remove the redundant read commands and use offset to search for us:
|
| #!/usr/local/bin/mc
| on startup
| put "/gig/tmp/log/xaa" into
| I'm confused: if the point is to avoid reading the entire file into memory,
| isn't what what line 8 does? And if it's already in memory, why is it read
| again inside the loop?
|
| I think I missed something from the original post
Hi
Sorry, yes you missed something but not from the or
Pierre Sahores wrote:
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> Pierre Sahores wrote:
>>
>>> So ! MC as far so fast than Pascal ! Is'nt it great ? And, thanks again
>>> to Scott, for that too !
>>
>> It's enough to make a Java programmer cry. ;)
>
> Java ? Help me to remember... Are you speaking, Richard,
Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> Pierre Sahores wrote:
>
> > So ! MC as far so fast than Pascal ! Is'nt it great ? And, thanks again
> > to Scott, for that too !
>
> It's enough to make a Java programmer cry. ;)
Java ? Help me to remember... Are you speaking, Richard, in about this
dead marketed toy t
Pierre Sahores wrote:
> So ! MC as far so fast than Pascal ! Is'nt it great ? And, thanks again
> to Scott, for that too !
It's enough to make a Java programmer cry. ;)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any database on any site
Sannyasin Sivakatirswami wrote:
>
> Om Sadhunathan:
>
> Excellent! i had been thinking that we should probably save access logs from our
>servers in honolulu, but then parsing those was a blind spot. This will help
>immensely.
>
> Now, do i read this to say that there were 17,338 attempts to l
Om Sadhunathan:
Excellent! i had been thinking that we should probably save access logs from our servers in honolulu, but then parsing those was a blind spot. This will help immensely.
Now, do i read this to say that there were 17,338 attempts to look at Mystic Mouse PDF's ? and if so, over what
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
> So that is 1:53 for bash, 2:04 for pascal, and 2:19 for MC. darn good!
But golly, I thought an "interpreted" language like MetaTalk was supposed to
be slow, certainly much slower than compiled Pascal.
:)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
Develope
Wow,
Just logged on to work and saw all the great responses. Thanks all,
what fun.
Anyway I will respond to each later and try your code too. I have
to run right now, appointment.
I did however have some code from Andu via Swami that I modifed
somewhat and got enormous speed improvement.
Her
Sadhunathan Nadesan a écrit :
>
> | Try something alike :
> |
> | > on mouseup
> | > put "1" into startread
> | > open file thefile for read
> | > read from file thefile until eof
> | > put the num of lines of it in endtoread
> | > close file thefile
> | > repeat while startread < endtoread
> | >
One last note:
Be careful of using
If you do not read for "lines", you run the risk of cutting a line in half on the spot where your magic string occurs.
So always use
HTH.
Brian
I'm pretty sure the problem with speed here is from reading in the entire file.
Unless of course you have enough free RAM- but that's hard to imagine when the files are 300MB+.
How about this, which you can adjust to read any given number of lines at a time.
Try it with 10, 1000, 1, etc and se
--On Friday, November 08, 2002 19:15:59 -0800 Richard Gaskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# !/usr/local/bin/mc
on startup
put "/gig/tmp/log/xaa" into the_file
put url ("file:"&the_file) into the_text
put 0 into the_counter
put 1 into tPointer
--
repeat for each line this_line in the_
andu wrote:
>> I think I missed something from the original post
>
> No, you got it right.
Thanks, Andu. I thought I was losin' it.
If we're allowed to read the whole thing into RAM and the goal is the count
the occurences of the string "mystic_mouse", then to optimize speed we can
just re
--On Friday, November 08, 2002 18:24:56 -0800 Richard Gaskin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
# !/usr/local/bin/mc
on startup
put "/gig/tmp/log/xaa" into the_file
put 1 into start_read
put 0 into the_counter
put 1 into the_offset
open file the_file for read
read from file
Sadhunathan Nadesan wrote:
> #!/usr/local/bin/mc
> on startup
> put "/gig/tmp/log/xaa" into the_file
> put 1 into start_read
> put 0 into the_counter
> put 1 into the_offset
> open file the_file for read
> read from file the_file until eof
> put the num of lines of it into end_read
> close file th
| Try something alike :
|
| > on mouseup
| > put "1" into startread
| > open file thefile for read
| > read from file thefile until eof
| > put the num of lines of it in endtoread
| > close file thefile
| > repeat while startread < endtoread
| > open file thefile for read
| > read from file thefil
41 matches
Mail list logo
