[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
Mike Solomon |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:02:57 +0200 |
On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:27 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I did speed-test that patch, but under Linux. Maybe the system
>>>>> calls to the font server, to get outlines for the glyphs, take
>>>>> longer under Windows.
>>>>
>>>> One easy way to avoid this is to turn off this feature with
>>>> vertical-skylines = ##f for lots of grobs - I do this often for big
>>>> scores when I want to compile them fast, but I reactivate the more
>>>> accurate vertical skylines for the final version.
>>>
>>> Sigh. It's stuff like that which really makes me pessimistic about the
>>> prospects of LilyPond as serious software.
>>>
>>> If its developers consider it unusable for serious work out of the box
>>
>> It’s the opposite - I use the out of the box settings for serious work
>> - it’s the unserious playing around that I try to speed up.
>
> How is "unserious playing around" not part of a serious creative work
> flow?
>
It is - I misunderstood what you said.
For years, starting with Graham Percival, we’ve been kicking the around the
idea of invoking LilyPond at various speed/beauty tradeoffs. I am for this,
but to date there have been no propositions that gel with the entire community.
I have suggested turning off all my sideline work as a default, but people
feel this would not be the best option, so for now, we have it all, which is
also not the best option. I stand by Graham’s idea.
>> I’ve said on several occasions that I’m indifferent deactivating some
>> or all of vertical skylines as a default. Several people are against
>> this deactivation (notable Janek).
>
> If we have more than a factor of 2 in timing involved between Linux and
> Windows, then we do too much repeated processing in the font server.
>
>> I’d be interested in gradations of UI options called perhaps:
>>
>> \faster-but-uglier
>> \a-lot-faster-but-a-lot-uglier
>> \ridiculously-fast-and-heinously-ugly
>
> Nope. In this case, the answer is to cache frequently accessed
> information instead of requesting it again and again.
>
> We don't want to give people a choice between different ways in which
> LilyPond will be bad. We just don't want LilyPond to be bad.
>
In my initial patches, which involved caching everything, there was no
appreciable speed-up on Mac and Linux. I did not test it on Windows, but I
don’t remember Windows users (Janek) reporting back problems).
I would be interested to do rigorous testing on Windows. It is not hard to do
- it requires creating a Scheme hash linking glyph names to skylines.
I still advocate allowing users to specify a speed/beauty tradeoff, which can
be done in concert with optimization to LilyPond’s core.
Cheers,
MS
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/15
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/14
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Werner LEMBERG, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Keith OHara, 2013/12/13
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Francisco Vila, 2013/12/11
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
Mike Solomon <=
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, David Kastrup, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Mike Solomon, 2013/12/10
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, Trevor Daniels, 2013/12/10