[REBOL] Small admin/report benchmark Re:
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 18-Sep-2000 6:47
> I reran the test with top going in another terminal
> window, and saw that the Perl version ran in about 1/20th
> the memory of the REBOL version. Both nearly saturated
> the CPU, with Perl slightly higher, in both the original
> benchmark run given above and the second run (times not
> reported due to the degradation imposed by running top
> concurrently with the processing).
> Comments welcome.
Just a small comment. While we can speak of efficiency of rebol scripts
source code, we probably can't say the same of rebol performance. We've
got great technology, but not usable on slower machines. My amiga
friends are reporting to me /View is not simply usable. Well, I remember
also /View's performance on P133. But - if RT wants to enter handhelds
etc. market, they have to optimise some way. Such devices are even less
capable than my old P133.
As for memory usage, it's sad. I don't remember who (Gabriele?), but
just few days ago someone complained about GC bug still being present
... jee, isn't it more than one year of significant bug still being
present? It consumed some 500 MB of memory while processing file ;-)
Also - we need improvement to parser. Robert has some ideas on his site.
One of the very interesting ones would be to make parser work upon
opened port. Parser is not usable upon larger files as such files have
to be read into memory. It could be done, as Carl said it's "great idea"
or something like that ....
The questions are arising. Answers are not arriving though. RT wants us
to propagate /View. Great - we can help them. But as more ppl will use
it, more ppl will start ask questions. Noone yet was able to tell us,
why /View can't be merged with /Command. I think it's time for final
product strategy definition, but I am scared, some marketing views will
hurt REBOL technology at it's basics ...