Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Now, I'm probably all wrong and messed up here so if anyone cares may 
>> correct me.  But I do feel JIT-compiled, bytecode compiled or even 
>> native code compiled SDL would do nothing for performance except perhaps 
>> make it worse should a more expressive and general language be used for 
>> the next SDL.
> 
>   Rather than speculate, you could make actual tests.
> 
>   I once did that, out of curiosity. I made an ascii-mandelbrot generator
> in both POV-Ray SDL and Perl (which is a byte-compiled, interpreted scripting
> language). They were line-by-line almost identical to each other, just with
> the correspondent syntax of each language. The Perl version was something
> like 20 times faster than the SDL version.

That's unexpected.

 From just the looks of it, the SDL parser seems so straightforward that 
it's difficult to reason where any slowness could be coming from. 
Perhaps the textual macro expansion...

OTOH, you do not mean you integrated Perl inside povray, did you? 
Instead of trying to measure SDL's speed on something it's not 
specialized at, what about integrating Perl inside povray so it could 
directly call povray's object creation functions via FFI or something 
and then use that to parse a simple Perl script that would generate a 
scene?  And then benchemarking that against the builtin SDL.

What you did was just measure SDL's slow macro processing, not it's 
speed at povray internal object creation.

I'm more than willing to do that with some small Scheme implementation 
even if it proves in vain.  I'll dig deeper into it and will certainly 
make actual tests.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message