J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 8/20/04 7:31 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Yes, in older, slower xTalks one might get a noticeable difference between "do" and the natural message path.
But it's a whole other world with Transcript -- this script tests timing of both the natural message path and the "do" command:
<snip>
So yes, using the do command is slower, but only by about 0.003ms.
Given that the menu script is responding to a user action and no user will be faster than 0.003ms, there's no perceptable savings to the system's performance, but using do can offer immediate savings for developer productivity.
The "lost" productivity in the script I submitted consists of typing an extra 5 words, which doesn't slow me down much.
There's no disputing tastes. Those extra words added up for me when I was a one-handed typist for a year, but hopefully that's something few will endure.
My main point was just that I didn't want to leave folks with the impression that using "do" was a mistake. Sometimes it's very useful, and in Transcript the penalty is imperceptible, almost immeasurable.
Continuing the curmudgeonliness: I'll keep doing it my way, I think. I am of the school that says loading the compiler unnecessaily is poor programming practice. A similar example would be in using unquoted literals; it works fine in many cases and doesn't really slow things down that much, but I don't use use them because they too are a poor habit to get into.
Fully agreed on unquoted literals: in addition to the reason you mention there are two others:
- it's easier to skim code for strings when they're quoted
- unquoted literals break when explicitVars is on
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
