Talk:Word wrap: Difference between revisions
last lastpos (again?)
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→REXX timings: last lastpos) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (last lastpos (again?)) |
||
Line 288:
::: (about the misspelling of ''vestigial''): I had did a quite web check and found many hits on ''vestigual'', but I saw the answers to a question and thought that was the correct spelling. At least, I'm not alone in misspelling that word: Vestigial Vsetigial Vesitgial Veetigial Veatigial Vedtigial Vewtigial Vextigial Vesrigial Vesgigial Vesyigial Vestogial Vestugial Vestkgial Vestirial Vestinial Vestitial Vestihial Vestibial Vestifial Vestigoal Vestigual Vestigkal Vestigisl Vestigizl Vestigiql Vestigiap Vestigiam Vestigiak --- that word must hold some kind of record in the number of ways to misspell a word. But I got almost all of the letters right. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
:: In my IBM time I learned that American colleagues are less spelling-conscious than we Europeans (or Austrians). It's a matter of emphasis on spelling in school. Did you do quite a web check or a quiet web check --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
::: Are you sure about the '''lastpos''' BIF not being available in (your) host's version of REXX? It's been around in REXX at least since 1984 (according to a VM System Product Interpreter Reference Summary), long before it was ported to MVS (or whatever it's being called now). Which host (and release) are you using? I didn't post any of REXX version 2 programs since you signed your name to it, and I didn't want to publish various versions of it, as it would appear that you were the author, and it didn't seem worth all the bother to include disclaimers and whatnot, and I had so many versions. I was just fooling around and was squeezing blood from a turnip trying to get more performance out of the program. I probably could get more performance out of it, but I got tired shoveling all that coal, and I had to add more code to handle a special case of long words. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
:::: I'd suggest to leave the header intact and add change lines such as * yyyyddmm GS this and that. But I really don't care. I put my names into my programs because I like to be known. Your programs are easily recognizable by @ and $ :-) AND your unique indentation rules! --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 05:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
<br>Here is the latest revision (with not much commenting, but better than nothing):
Line 353 ⟶ 357:
: I got a 45% improvement (using Regina REXX), you got a 35% improvement (using ooRexx) --- Are my assumptions correct? How many engines does your laptop have? How much memory? What other processes are running? When I run benchmarks, the computer is running pretty much naked (as possible). No matter what the improvement (35% or 45%), that's nothing to sneeze at. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
::
Unfortunately I cannot verify a similar performance difference with my 1MB file. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Line 365 ⟶ 369:
: With a one megabyte file, you may be measuring the effects of paging in your laptop (as for elapsed time) as well as competition/interference with other processes. That was one reason why I used a multiplier for the '''do''' loop instead of increasing the amount of text read. The drawback is that (the multiplier) increases the locality of reference, and I don't know enough about the Microsoft Windows paging sub-system to know how much of an effect that is. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
| |||