Re: processing time & stack overflow!!!
Re: processing time & stack overflow!!!
- Subject: Re: processing time & stack overflow!!!
- From: monk <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:24:15 -0400
>
You know, I feel really obtuse. This didn't even click in until just now.
>
>
22 seconds for a 10,000 word file.
>
>
(I think I'll hide for a while...)
>
>
Victor
whoaaa! wow - that's what i was looking for and expexted from
applescript!!!! victor, i was just about to respond to all of the
applescript lamentations, can you explain/share to/with us what you did to
make the script go from an average of 12 minutes to (on my machine) 12
seconds!!!!
gotta love it - my mind is renewed on applescript's potential!!!
responding to posts prior to your ingenious code!
who was it that added that time took to process dialog, that is great!
--
i am responding to all of the comments on this thread lately, by scripters
that are more knowledgeable than me:
my general impression is that when i first started this project i should
have asked the list if it was going to be feasable in applescript or not, my
general idea is that i have learned applescript is marginal at large batch
processing of text strings (but now victor seems to have overcome this)
being technical in nature and relatively inexperienced in programming, i had
the impression, from where i can't say, just general, that applescript could
handle my needs, which have ended up being more programable than scriptable
- in all of my introduction to applescript i never saw a reference to what
applescript was not good at, so i never knew, or was not able to 'read
between the lines', now i feel satisfied becasue of all of your
contributions, i have learned better what applescript is . . .
now i really should investigate labview too, and agree that applescript's
compiler should be probably be reworked
well i'm sure that many people, like myself, sink time and effort into
applescript beleiveing that in the end it will provide them with a solution
(maybe i should remember that ease of use and learnability doesn't
equivocate to power or usefulenss?)
i think it matters what we do now, and that if without crippling
applescript, it should be improved to handle tasks that are typically
addressed in simple programming, or other scripting languages, whatever the
requests of the scripter/programmer are (like scrambling words, or
cataloging a pottery collection, or whatever!)
for me, i would like to stick to an environment that matches my needs most
of the time, than knowing what environment i can use to best solve a
particular set of circumstances: it is easier and more natural to work in
one language as much as possible rather than switching back and forth
between a few or many, no?
>
But if the demand is really so strong, then someone ought to write a fast,
>
highly scriptable FBA.
what is an fba?
i'm tending to think applescript is slightly under-resourced, and don't have
enough experience to rate it, but happy to have learned from many
intelligent beings on this list
depending on the design/problem, i might not recommend it as easily as i had
been led to beleive before, but am curious to see what happens in time (yay
victor!), and on osx
howie 'monk' elmer
--
http://www.assemblage.org
[ _ o
o o _ -- - - -- > s y m p h o n i c j a m s ]