On 01/18/11 01:54, Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote:
On 17/01/11 14:08, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Didip Kerabatdid...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know about any recent benchmarks, but I think Vala will
generally be a bit slower than Mono, but more memory efficient.
you should post this in a new thread.
the language looks interesting, but I would prefer lispy parenthesis
than brackets. it hurts less my eyes.
Few time ago I proposed in the irc(?) about adding a lispy/schemy syntax
support to Vala. I think Gel does
the job, but I would like to have it
I second that.
In typical scenarios, where you are not creating hundreds of thousands
GLib.Objects all the time, you will have much faster applications with
vala.
On 01/18/11 01:54, Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote:
On 17/01/11 14:08, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Didip
Hi again,
I've been reading a bit more of gel. I thought it was generating C code,
but it is interpreted,
so it takes no sense to merge it in Vala. But I still think that having
a lispy syntax for
Vala would be great.
About brackets vs parenthesis. You say in README that you choose []
Hello,
Anyone who have knowledge in using the V4l2 interface? Specifically someone
who have worked on Webcam, with STREAMING capability, using vala?
Heres the problem:
I was able to setup my webcam with the help of sample in
http://v4l2spec.bytesex.org/spec/a16706.htm. Everything was going
Exactly, that's why I mentioned my specific experience with my pet
language, because I was in the case that for every iteration, I was
creating 2 gobjects, which resulted in 100,000 gobjects created in a
few seconds.
And just dropping gobjects (full classes) to use plain structs
(compact classes)
Thanks Pancake.
Agree, I'll drop the [ ] to use ( )
I have not announced it yet because I still have problems returning lambdas,
and also because I do not have introspection yet (just a snippet to play around)
(And also because my wife is back from vacation, which means I have
less spare time.
It is well known thing in C++ that calling a new for creating a new
classes costs. Especially framework classes (i.e. root.cern.ch) with
virtual table and probably reloaded new operator (but still based on malloc
heap allocation) gains approximately the same performance on creation as was
shown
Hi list.
This is my first time posting here, so bare with me if I'm being an idiot.
I apologize for continuing with the performance discussion but I've noticed
unintuitive (at least to me) behaviour when using interfaces in Vala.
I know that calling interface methods is expensive and that it's a
Hi, why this code doesn't work
Item item = null;
parse_content(item);
parse_content(Item item) {
stderr.printf(argh);
}
reports
** (process:674): CRITICAL **: xml_parser_parse_content: assertion
`item != NULL' failed
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
2011/1/19 Pavol Klačanský pa...@klacansky.com:
Hi, why this code doesn't work
Here the item is null
Item item = null;
parse_content(item);
And in this function you declared parameter as non-null
parse_content(Item item) {
stderr.printf(argh);
}
reports
** (process:674): CRITICAL
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:11 +0100, Pavol Klačanský wrote:
Hi, why this code doesn't work
Item item = null;
parse_content(item);
parse_content(Item item) {
stderr.printf(argh);
}
reports
** (process:674): CRITICAL **: xml_parser_parse_content: assertion
`item != NULL' failed
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:52 +0100, Sergej Reich wrote:
I know that calling interface methods is expensive and that it's a known issue
in GLib but there is another problem. When a class implements an interface,
calling methods is slow regardless whether you declare your objects as being
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 22:46 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 21:52 +0100, Sergej Reich wrote:
I know that calling interface methods is expensive and that it's a known
issue
in GLib but there is another problem. When a class implements an interface,
calling methods is
14 matches
Mail list logo
