AltME groups: search

not timers... counter... not the same thing.   precise counters use 
the Clock frequency to measure time differences.

that estimates clock drift and adapts accordingly

Yes, but a bit much for just looking at the clock every five hours

@Steeve ... but look at the "Doomsday Clock" modification to my hourglass 
solution

r3-gui demo updated. Present version : 0.5.0. New validated tests 
: drawing, clock, scroller, windows, text-list (simple system browser)

From a quick browse of the Virtual Box User Manual, a VM uses the 
host systems "time stamp counter" by default. There are a number 
of options to change the "guest clock".


It's section 9.10 in the Virtual Box User Manual if you want to take 
a look.

I think that single precision is used mostly on GPUs as you can have 
up to 2 single float operations per clock.

This code will cause an access violation as clock in libc returns 
an integer not a pointer to an integer.

pi: declare pointer! [integer!] 
#import [
	LIBC-FILE cdecl [
	  read-cpu-clock: "clock" [
	    return:    [pointer! [integer!]]
	  ]
    ]
]
pi: read-cpu-clock
pi/value

But stupid Windows measures wall-clock time instead of processor 
time

Kaj - you should also be aware of this note iin the Libc docs:

— Macro: int CLOCKS_PER_SEC

The value of this macro is the number of clock ticks per second measured 
by the clock function. POSIX requires that this value be one million 
independent of the actual resolution.

Q: Does World compile into bytecodes (a la java) or machine languages?

A: Into bytecodes for the virtual machine. Each VM instruction is 
32 bytes (256 bits) including data and register pointers.

Q: Can you do operators with more or less than 2 arguments?

A: Not yet. I've considered post-fix operators (1 argument), and 
it shouldn't be too hard to implement. To motivate me, I would like 
to figure out some really good examples. With more arguments, I can 
only think of the ternary operator ("THE ternary operator"). I'm 
not sure, World needs that.

Q: Is range! a series! type?

A: No, range! is a component datatype. It has two components just 
like pair!.

Q: What platforms are supported?

A: For now Mac OS X (64 bit), Linux (32 bit) and Windows (Win32). 
The code is very portable. It took me a few hours to port to Linux 
from OS X and just a few days to Windows.

Q: What platforms do you plan to support in the future?

A: It would be cool to see World on all thinkable platforms. I personally 
don't have time to support all. World is not a hobby project, and 
I'm open for business opportunities to support other platforms. The 
host depending code is open source. I mainly think 64-bit.


Q: I'm a little sorry to see the R2-style port model instead of the 
R3 style. Are all ports direct at least?

A: Yes, ports are direct (no buffering). The ports and networking 
are some of the most recent implemented. More work is needed in this 
area. I would like to keep it simple and fast, yet flexible so we're 
all happy.


Q: What in the world is going on with the World Programming Language? 
This looks like something that must have been under wraps for a long 
time. What's getting released?

A: I didn't speak up about this, until I was sure, there were no 
show-stoppers. The open alpha of World/Cortex is being released as 
executables for Mac OS X, Linux and Windows (Win32), as are the platform 
dependent sources and initial documentation. World implement 74 natives 
and more than 40 datatypes. The Cortex extension (cortex.w) implement 
100 or so mezzanine functions and some definitions. The REBOL extension 
(or REBOL dialect in rebol.w) implement close to 50 mezzanine functions 
(not all functionality) and some definitions.

Q: Did you do some speed benchmark? (R3 vs R2 vc World) ?
A: Yes:

(All tests under OS X using R2 v. 2.7.7.2.5 and R3 v. 2.100.111.2.5)

- A mandelbrot routine (heavy calculations using complex! arithmetic) 
is 6-7 times faster in World than code doing the same without complex! 
in R2 and 11-12 times faster than R3. If using same code, it's 2.5 
times faster in World than R2 and 4.2 times faster than R3.
- A simple WHILE loop like:
n: 1000000 while [0 < n: n - 1] []

is 1.8 times faster in World than in R2 and 2.8 times faster than 
in R3.

- I tested networking in two ways. One sending one byte back and 
forth between client and server task 100'000 times using PICK to 
get it, and another sending 1k bytes back and forth 10'000 times 
using COPY/PART to get it from the port. Both were around 3 times 
faster in World than in R2. (I didn't test this in R3.)

- I tested calling "clock" and "tanh" routines in the libc library. 
I called those routines 1'000'000 times in a loop and subtracted 
the time of the same loop without calling. Calling "clock" is 2.4 
times faster in World than in R2. Calling "tanh" (with argument 1.0) 
is 5.9 times faster in World than in R2. (I didn't test this in R3.)


(Some functions are mezzanines in World, which are natives in REBOL, 
so they'll in most cases be slower in World.)

Today World types in routines are considered, when typecheck is on, 
and conversion is then carried out between the World type and the 
C type for the arguments, and the C type and the World type for the 
result. Examples with "clock" from libc under OS X:


w> clock: make routine! [libc "clock" sint64]	; The simple version
w> clock
== 79551135

w> clock: make routine! [[typecheck ]libc "clock" sint64 real!]		; 
Result as real!
w> clock
== 79576741.0

w> clock: make routine! [[typecheck ]libc "clock" sint64 complex!]	; 
Result as complex!
w> clock
== 79621776+0i