The somewhat "sluggish" behavior of all LC versions 7.x is apparent
without testing a single script over several versions. Just use the LC
IDE and copy and paste any object and you see how reluctantly the IDE
performs these basic steps. In my case this is on a Windows machine with
Windows 7 and 32 bit.
More specially, I have tested this for imagedata processing, where I
have set a personal focus these last years. I have several times filed
bug reports accompanied by sample stacks. Recently I have repeated tests
and added new ones comparing MC and LC versions from MC 4.6.1 to LC 8.0.
The general (average) results on the basis of identical (or
"corresponding" - see below) scripts are like this:
- Scripts running in LC 4.6.1 are about 10 to 20% slower compared to
running under the MC (Metacard) 4.6.1 IDE
- Scripts in LC 6.7.5 are about 1.7 times slower than in MC 4.6.1
- Scripts in versions LC 7.x run about 3 to 10 times slower, depending
on the complexity of the script, compared to MC 4.6.1, which means for
example that more time-consuming filters (without using DLLs) for image
sizes 640x480 like convolution-matrix filters which might need 30
seconds in MC 4.6.1 will run for 2 to 3 minutes under LC 7.0.4.
With larger images you can easily reach ten and more minutes, which is
inacceptable.
These comparisons take into account that in versions 7.x you have to
substitute char, chartonum, numtochar by byte, numtobyte, bytetonum -
this is why I spoke of "corresponding" scripts above.
You can use the byte-functions already in versions 4 to 6, but with some
caveats:
- The first is that "put bytetonum(numtobyte(-100))" (as an example)
evaluates to "0" instead of 156 in "chartonum(numtochar(-100)). With
filters possibly dealing with negative values like in my "duplicate
colors"-algorithm you therefore get a totally black image after the 9th
iteration instead of returning to the original image.
- The second is that in certain contexts - as with matrix operations -
you need to use a "hybrid" combination like "chartonum(numtobyte(x)" to
avoid an error message.
In versions 7.x pure "byte"-scripts are the norm, but "char"-scripts are
tolerated up to (including) version 7.0.4.
The use of any "char"-scripts in LC versions 7.0.5 immediately leads to
crashes, resulting for example in opening the script editor without
showing any part of the script and sometimes in removing all
image-values stored in custom properties. After that I had to force-quit
Livecode.
When I tried to create a sample stack that could be opened both in MC
4.6.1 and LC 8.0 the menu items (entered in the properties inspector)
of all case-statements in the menupick handlers became scrambled, but
left the menupick scripts itself untouched. This effect was visible in
each of the buttons on the card that used menupick handlers, meaning the
distortion of the menu items appeared simultaneously.
In LC 7.04 quite a number of scripts using bytes or chars respectively
run with similar speeds sometimes with a slight overhead (slower) for
scripts using chars, but, as already mentioned, 4 to 10 times slower
compared to MC 4.6.1
Here is an elementary example script for an internal "mirror from right"
(the right side of the image is mirrored on the left side):
"on mouseUp
set the cursor to watch
put the milliseconds into Start
put the imageData of image x into iData
put the height of img x into theight
put the width of img x into twidth
set the endvalue of scrollbar 1 to theight
put trunc(theight/30) into scrollstep
put 4* twidth into re
put twidth/2 into twhalf
repeat with i = 0 to theight - 1
if i mod scrollstep = 0 then set the thumbpos of scrollbar 1 to i
put i*re into ti
put -1 into DiffJ
repeat with j = twhalf to twidth - 1
add 2 to DiffJ
put char (ti + (j*4+2)) of idata into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4
+2)) of idata
put char (ti + (j*4+3)) of idata into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4
+3)) of idata
put char (ti + (j*4+4)) of idata into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4
+4)) of idata
end repeat
end repeat
set the imageData of image x to iData
put the milliseconds - Start into fld "Test"
set the thumbpos of scrollbar 1 to theight
end mouseUp"
Speed tests for this script under MC 4.6.1 with different image sizes in
milliseconds - using "byte" instead of "char" in the sample script above
for the second row:
320x240 480x360 512x384 640x480
chars 104 179 203 303
bytes 104 186 203 296
Corresponding values for LC 7.0.4:
320x240 480x360 512x384 640x480
chars 1449 1692 1842 2087
bytes 1407 1641 1793 2003
I noticed however that *some* scripts running relatively fast under MC
4.6.1 could take up to 2000 (two thousand) times longer -and even more
depending on image size - with LC 7.0.4. It was difficult to find out
the common cause for these ultra-slow scripts. At least one of the
causes for the ultra-slow speed is that these scripts used two sets of
imagedata in variables "idata" and "idata2", because - when relocating
pixels in an image - sometimes the area of the source pixels overlaps
with that of the target pixels. This can for example happen when you
wish to combine two images (superimposing or partly overlapping) or when
you turn a rect inside an image for 90 degrees.
In the sample script above no such overlapping of source and target
pixels occurs, but we can simulate this effect nevertheless by creating
two sets of imagedata adding the line
"put idata into idata2" to the script
and then changing the core part of the sample script to
"put char (ti + (j*4+2)) of idata2 into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4 +2)) of
idata
put char (ti + (j*4+3)) of idata2 into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4 +3)) of idata
put char (ti + (j*4+4)) of idata2 into char (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4 +4)) of
idata".
Results of these changes in LC 7.0.4:
320x240 480x360 512x384 640x480
chars 25168 163495 216116 576434
bytes 1407 1641 1793 2003
The results for the byte-version "put byte (ti + (j*4+2)) of idata2 into
byte (ti + ((j-DiffJ)*4 +2)) of idata" etc. remained the same as for the
script using only one set of imagedata. Under MC 4.6.1 there is likewise
no difference between using one or two sets of imagedata both for char
and byte-scripts.
Speed of the two-set imagedata script in LC 7.0.4 for an image size of
640x480 is with 576434 milliseconds 1902 times slower than with the same
script under MC 4,6,1, which needs only 303 milliseconds.
I know that there are alternatives for instance using arrays, and I
haved tested them, but they are not necessarily faster in all cases.
Best regards,
Wilöhelm Sanke
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
