If you are talking about recursion, that is having a function call itself, be
aware that there is a limit to recursion. But I don’t think that is what you
are asking.
The repeat structure is pretty damned efficient already. For repeats of a fixed
number where your script doesn’t need the count
On 2/11/14, 9:48 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
For small tasks though, your users will not even be able to blink
before 100,000 simple repeats are executed. I ran a 100,000 count
loop with nothing in the repeat loop to do and it took 1 tick. ONE
TICK! The repeat loop is NOT what slows things down!
Wel
Aye, but the question was which form of repeat was more efficient. In fact your
example proves the point which is, it’s the actual code inside the repeat loop
that takes way more time than the form of repeat itself.
What would really be of interest is comparing the form repeat for each word
th
On 2/13/14, 8:53 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Aye, but the question was which form of repeat was more efficient.
I thought you said that any repeat loop was equal to another, and just
pointed out that an empty loop (your original test) didn't mean much
until you put some code in it.
It's pretty w
Oops. That reads way snarkier than it sounded in my head. Sorry.
On 2/13/14, 10:12 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 2/13/14, 8:53 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
Aye, but the question was which form of repeat was more efficient.
I thought you said that any repeat loop was equal to another, and just
pointe
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:12 PM, "J. Landman Gay"
> wrote:
>
> It's pretty well established that the "for each" form is a magnitude faster
> than the counting form.
Nitpicking, but "[order of] magnitude" doesn't come close to covering the
efficiency. The example Bob gave, since there were onl
For anyone who cares, I re-wrote Bob's code to handle a variable-length
string like so:
on mouseUp
put 10 into wc
repeat with i = 1 to wc
put i & space after tData
end repeat
put the ticks into line one of theTime
repeat 100 div wc
repeat with j = 1 to wc
I did not think “snarky” when I read your post. Whenever discussing technical
things, it probably always sounds snarky. I’ve second guessed some of my own
posts for that reason, But no fear, I take everything I read on this list from
long time posters as what it is: Expert opinions from professi
Funny, just before I read your post I was thinking, “I wonder if this scales
linearly or logarithmically?” GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! ;-)
Bob
On Feb 15, 2014, at 07:37 , Geoff Canyon
mailto:gcan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
For anyone who cares, I re-wrote Bob's code to handle a variable-length
string li
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> Funny, just before I read your post I was thinking, "I wonder if this
> scales linearly or logarithmically?" GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! ;-)
>
It's pretty much my personal quest to convince everyone never to use repeat
with i = 1 to the number of an
On Feb 16, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Bob Sneidar
> wrote:
>
>> Funny, just before I read your post I was thinking, "I wonder if this
>> scales linearly or logarithmically?" GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! ;-)
>
> It's pretty much my personal quest to convin
Have to admit I'm the same. If it's more convenient codingwise to to
repeat with x=1 to whatever and I know for sure there won;t be many
iterations to go through, the speed difference is unnoticeable to the user.
I'm also curious about another aspect of this. Is it universally true that
"repeat
Time test:
on testRepeat
put "xxx" into line 10 of tList
replace cr with "xxx" & cr in tList
put the long seconds into timerStart
repeat with n = 1 to 10
put line n of tList & cr after newList1
end repeat
put the long seconds into timerEnd
put timerEnd - timerSta
On 17/02/2014 21:50, Peter Haworth wrote:
Have to admit I'm the same. If it's more convenient codingwise to to
repeat with x=1 to whatever and I know for sure there won;t be many
iterations to go through, the speed difference is unnoticeable to the user.
I'm also curious about another aspect of
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote:
> It's pretty much my personal quest to convince everyone never to use repeat
> with i = 1 to the number of anything.
>
I'm frequently using
put 0 into i
repeat for each word theWord in someString
add 1 to i
end repeat
as I frequently need
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Peter M. Brigham wrote:
> Well, I still do [repeat with i = 1 to the number of] for i < 1000 or so,
> and the speed hit is perfectly acceptable for that. The advantage for me is
> when I must use the number of the iteration I'm in to do something.
For all my pro
16 matches
Mail list logo
