[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ? |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:18:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Mike Solomon <address@hidden> writes:
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:47 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> 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.
Maybe caching in unsuitable form? Cached data should be in a form
directly usable for processing (with some possible tradeoffs between
memory impact and unpacking speed), not in the form that
function/library/system calls will return it.
> I did not test it on Windows, but I don’t remember Windows users
> (Janek) reporting back problems).
Well, sounds like hen-and-egg here: we need more serious users to give
more definite feedback, so that we can make LilyPond more suitable for
more serious users.
> 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.
That makes only sense where there is an incurable reason for a large
tradeoff. "in concert with optimization to LilyPond's core" is, in my
experience, a buzzphrase. In particular the word "optimization" tends
to be construed as "somewhat tune an unsuitable algorithm, making it
inscrutable in the process".
I know that this use of "optimization" is widespread, but I have a
thorough dislike for it. Almost any task can be algorithmically cast
into the n lg (n) category which, with modern processors, is usually
doable without having to think about tradeoffs.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?, (continued)
- 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, 2013/12/10
- Re: anyone notice speed of 2.17.95 on Windows ?,
David Kastrup <=
- 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