Re: Highlights of AppleScript 1.5.5 in Mac OS 9.1
Re: Highlights of AppleScript 1.5.5 in Mac OS 9.1
- Subject: Re: Highlights of AppleScript 1.5.5 in Mac OS 9.1
- From: "Arthur J Knapp" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:46:10 -0500
>
Subject: Re: Highlights of AppleScript 1.5.5 in Mac OS 9.1
>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:48:31 +0000
>
From: Nigel Garvey <email@hidden>
>
Timothy Bates wrote on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:19:36 +1100:
>
>
>On 1/10/01 10:55 AM, "Nigel Garvey" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>> If it's as fast as the current 'round', it'll still be seventeen times
>
>> quicker to use a handler:
>
>On a plain Jane B&W G3 350, I get:
>
>-->{9,0}
>
That's a brain bender, isn't it? Running your script here, I get a result
>
of {2,0}
But surely, you can't trust a speed test where one of the results
is zero. I always increase the relevant variables until I obtain
"significant" values for all tests.
(Remember, I'm the guy who isn't good at math) :)
If test t1 clocks in at 2, and test t2 at 0, the actual ratio
between the two numbers can vary rather widely, because 0 simply
means that the speed of test t2 is below the "threshhold" of
the testing method.
If we increase the number of repetitions from 100 to 1000,
and discover that {2, 0} becomes {20, 0}, we still haven't
learned much about the actual ratio between the two tested
methods.
>
'current date' to 'the ticks' in your script, I typically get the result
>
{93,5}
Now *that* is significant. ;-)
>
NG
Is this the "other" list? I keep forgetting. ;-)
--
{
Arthur J Knapp, of STELLARViSIONs ;
http://www.STELLARViSIONs.com ;
mailto:email@hidden ;
"... but I could be anyone"
"No you couldn't, sir ..."
}