World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Henrik 15-Nov-2011 [2611] | you would need an ALL instead of ANY in the first one, if it is to behave like the bottom one. |
amacleod 15-Nov-2011 [2612] | right..... |
amacleod 30-Nov-2011 [2613] | I'm trying to reach a time server but having trouble. I can get a time from my rebol based time server on my server with "read daytime://myserver.com" but if I use it for any of the well known online servers I get : >> read daytime://time-b.nist.gov == "" >> read daytime://nist1-ny.ustiming.org == "" sometimes it seems to work but more often than not I get an empty string |
BrianH 30-Nov-2011 [2614] | There are a few different time protocols, and the standard time servers don't tend to run the daytime protocol. They usually run NTP. |
Pavel 30-Nov-2011 [2615x2] | 2 amacleod: time protocol is not very accurate, the same levely of accuracy you can get by reading any HTML size and distile the time from HTML header. OTOH NTP protocol is able to get milisecond accuracy but by quite difficult handshake and as far as I know not yet written for rebol |
size = site | |
amacleod 30-Nov-2011 [2617] | daytime://nist1.aol-va.symmetricom.com seems to work resonably well I dont need to be too accurate just +- 5 seconds.... my server's time seems to be drifting. I've seen this before on an another computer...does a bad battery affect the time even if the power remains on? |
BrianH 30-Nov-2011 [2618x2] | It might be better to enable your server's native time sync services. Windows, Linux and OSX all have such services, as do many more OSes. |
The hardware clocks of many computers are rather inaccurate, though they're getting better.. They expect you to enabe the time sync services. | |
amacleod 30-Nov-2011 [2620] | It's enabled but does not sync as fast as the drift and I'm having trouble doing it manually...keep getting an error and I tried several time servers. |
Henrik 7-Dec-2011 [2621] | if I have a file with url-encoded chars in it, what's the fastest way to decode them? |
Dockimbel 7-Dec-2011 [2622] | dehex |
Henrik 7-Dec-2011 [2623] | Thank you very much. I forgot that. |
Henrik 10-Dec-2011 [2624] | what is the fastest way to find the number of digits in a number, if you want to use it to calculate the pixel width of the number for a table column? simply using: length? form number ? |
Geomol 10-Dec-2011 [2625x2] | My guess would be: 1 + to integer! log-10 number , but that's slightly slower than yours, it seems. |
Can your number both be integer and decimal? | |
Henrik 10-Dec-2011 [2627] | it's most likely to be a decimal |
Geomol 10-Dec-2011 [2628] | Then mine won't work. |
Henrik 10-Dec-2011 [2629] | I may have found another way without needing to work on the length. Thanks, anyway. |
Geomol 10-Dec-2011 [2630] | :) |
Ladislav 12-Dec-2011 [2631] | but that's slightly slower than yours, it seems - strange, here it looks much faster than length? form |
Geomol 12-Dec-2011 [2632] | >> number: 1234 == 1234 >> time [loop 1000000 [1 + to integer! log-10 number]] == 0:00:00.293239 >> time [loop 1000000 [length? form number]] == 0:00:00.28022 On R2 version 2.7.7.2.5 |
Sunanda 12-Dec-2011 [2633] | I see the log-10 loop as around 18% faster under core 2.7.8. So this optimisation depends, it seems, on specific machines and versions. |
Kaj 12-Dec-2011 [2634] | It would depend on the relative speeds of the CPU and the FPU |
Ashley 14-Dec-2011 [2635] | Ran code like the following against a 600MB file of 500,000+ lines: file: read/lines %log.csv foreach line file [ remove/part line 1000 ] and was surprised that the foreach loop was near instantaneous (I'd assumed 500,000+ removes would at least take a second or two). I'm not complaining, just curious. ;) |
Geomol 14-Dec-2011 [2636] | Does it work? Or do you hit a 4GB boundary with some internal structures, so there is an error, you don't get out? |
Ashley 14-Dec-2011 [2637] | It certainly worked (file size was 400MB not 600MB). |
BrianH 14-Dec-2011 [2638] | R2 or R3? R3 can do removes from the head of the string as fast as it can from the tail - near instantaneously. I don't think that this is true for R2. |
Ashley 15-Dec-2011 [2639] | R2. |
Endo 15-Dec-2011 [2640] | I do something similar, generating 10'000 lines and writing to a file takes 5-6 seconds to complete on my Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 (2.8 Ghz) 3GB RAM. 500'000 lines a bit too much but you read the whole file into memory so it is possible. Your PC is a good one as well I think. |
Ashley 16-Dec-2011 [2641] | iCore 7 with 8GB RAM and a 256GB SSD ... work PC. |
Endo 16-Dec-2011 [2642] | which means 10 times better than mine :) its normal to have that performance with 8GB RAM + SSD I think. file & block operations & foreach is fast on R2 in my experience. |
GrahamC 16-Dec-2011 [2643] | Since Carl seems to have abandoned Rebol ...I wonder if this triggers the release of the source code held in escrow? |
Sunanda 16-Dec-2011 [2644] | That would depend on what the escrow license says. Unless anyone here has signed a REBOL escrow source license, all we have is a vague description: http://www.rebol.com/faq.html#058 |
GrahamC 16-Dec-2011 [2645] | I wonder if Reichart knows ... Qtask depends on Rebol |
PeterWood 17-Dec-2011 [2646] | He may well know but I think that it is wishful thinking that the source may be released under an escrow agreement just because Carl has been quiet for a while. |
Henrik 17-Dec-2011 [2647] | Since Carl seems to have abandoned Rebol - there is no evidence of that. A few weeks ago, it was stated here that Carl was working on R3 again. |
Gabriele 17-Dec-2011 [2648] | Qtask does not depend on any changes being made to REBOL. |
Henrik 17-Dec-2011 [2649x2] | YY is a block of 4 decimals, which should be containing the same value, but it seems they are not the same to UNIQUE: == [5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0] ; derived from a calculation >> yy/1 == yy/2 == true >> yy/1 == yy/3 == true >> yy/1 == yy/4 == true >> unique yy == [5.0 5.0] ; huh? >> zz: [5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0] ; typed directly in >> unique zz == [5.0] |
Seems it's already been repported: http://www.rebol.net/cgi-bin/rambo.r?id=4093& | |
Geomol 17-Dec-2011 [2651] | It's internal rounding in REBOL, is my guess. You can see it with R3: >> to decimal! #{4013 FFFF FFFF FFFF} == 5.0 >> to decimal! #{4014 0000 0000 0000} == 5.0 >> to decimal! #{4014 0000 0000 0001} == 5.0 So decimals may look the same, even if they're not. |
Henrik 17-Dec-2011 [2652] | it works in R3. |
Geomol 17-Dec-2011 [2653x2] | In R3, you can try do a >to binary!< on the results from the calculation and see the difference. |
In R2, you can do some rounding before calling unique. | |
Ladislav 17-Dec-2011 [2655x2] | In R3 also: >> print mold/all to decimal! #{4013 FFFF FFFF FFFF} 4.9999999999999991 >> print mold/all to decimal! #{4014 0000 0000 0000} 5.0 >> print mold/all to decimal! #{4014 0000 0000 0001} 5.0000000000000009 |
see http://issue.cc/r3/1634 | |
amacleod 18-Dec-2011 [2657] | I need to extract the data from an image file so it does not include the "64#" header and I just have the 64 bit encoding: 64#{ /9j/4faARXhpZgAATU0AKgAAAAgABwEPAAIAAAAESFRDAAEQAAIAAAAIAAAAYgEa AAUAAAABAAAAagEbAAUAAAABAAAAcgEoAAMAAAABAAIAAAITAAMAAAABAAEAAIdp is3eIoxUdG7n/9k= } I just wnat the stuff between the quotes but as its a binary I can't seem to parse it or extract it with other methods like a text file. |
Geomol 18-Dec-2011 [2658x2] | x: mold 64#{ /9j/4faARXhpZgAATU0AKgAAAAgABwEPAAIAAAAESFRDAAEQAAIAAAAIAAAAYgEa AAUAAAABAAAAagEbAAUAAAABAAAAcgEoAAMAAAABAAIAAAITAAMAAAABAAEAAIdp is3eIoxUdG7n/9k= } copy/part skip x 3 -5 + length? x |
Notice the molded version is twice as large as the original binary. | |
Gabriele 18-Dec-2011 [2660] | ENBASE |
older newer | first last |