[REBOL] Re: Limit on Globals?
From: tim:johnsons-web at: 6-Nov-2001 10:11
Hi Ryan:
That was a good tip:
Below is session I ran (Core 2.5.0.4. on RH 6.0. 450 mhz/320 meg ram)
>> length? first system/words
== 1154
>> repeat i 40000[ctr: i set to-word to-string i i]
** Internal Error: No more global variable space
** Where: to-word
** Near: to word! :value
>> ctr
== 2939
>> length? first system/words
== 4094
hmmm! 1154 + 2939 = 4093
Do we have (kind of) the beginning of a memory managment strategy here?
Can global words be "unloaded"
Thanks
tj
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 10:13:43AM -0800, Ryan Cole wrote:
> Tim Johnson wrote:
>
> > Hello All:
> > I'm struggling with code bloat here<sigh>.
> > I have a large application with a significant number of global words.
> >
> > 1)Does anyone have any ideas as to what would be a reasonable limit
> > on the number of global words?
>
> 1903 by my test...
>
> >> repeat i 40000 [
> [ ctr: i
> [ set to-word to-string i i
> [ ]
> ** Internal Error: No more global variable space
> ** Where: to-word
> ** Near: to word! :value
> >> ctr
> == 1903
> >>
>
> >
> > 2)Is there an advantage to putting global words into an object?
> >
>
> I have not been able to find any performance gain whatsoever. I would say there
> is some advantage logistically, helping to avoid naming conflicts, code
> portability, and just a way to devide up your source into understandable chunks.
> In a large program, you may look into coding it in dialect at the higher levels.
> This would take care of most naming conflicts too. Once you have gotten to
> objects, dialecting is just around the bind.
>
> --Ryan
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
--
Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>
http://www.johnsons-web.com
