Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ MUSHclient
➜ Tips and tricks
➜ Python's issue with callbacks
|
Python's issue with callbacks
|
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
| Posted by
| Ked
Russia (524 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Tue 26 Aug 2003 04:35 PM (UTC) Amended on Thu 28 Aug 2003 06:32 AM (UTC) by Nick Gammon
|
| Message
| Having recently become completely disgusted with Vbscript, I've gone to testing Python with a purpose of figuring out performance benefits of translating about 2k lines of code into that language. After fidling with a code snippet, found in Python's newsgroup, I arrived at a few trivial conclusions: Python is faster than Vbscript by alot when it comes to math, it has less overhead associated with function calls than Vbscript does, not to mention that it is by far more powerful and flexible than Microsoft's little victim of incest (although that victim did serve me well for awhile). About the only thing at which Python fails misearably when compared to Vbscript is Mushclient's callbacks. Unfortunately, it's 1.5-4.5 times slower than Vbscript when it comes to using callbacks. Although I couldn't figure out a way to make Python outrun Vbscript on callbacks, I can offer a little advice for making sure you squeeze as much out of Python when doing World.Note's, or any other callback routines, as possible. Compare the following two functions:
from time import clock
aggregateTime = 0.0
def Main(name, output, wildcs):
global aggregateTime
list = range(100)
for i in list:
startTime = clock() # timing starts here
lworldEnTrig = world.EnableTrigger
lworldEnTrig("test_callbacks", 1)
lworldEnTrig("test_callbacks", 0)
totalTime = clock() - startTime # timing ends here
aggregateTime = aggregateTime + totalTime
averageTime = aggregateTime/100
world.Note("Average time (mapped version): " + str(averageTime))
aggregateTime = 0.0
and
from time import clock
aggregateTime = 0.0
def Main(name, output, wildcs):
global aggregateTime
list = range(100)
for i in list:
startTime = clock() # timing starts here
world.EnableTrigger("test_callbacks", 1)
world.EnableTrigger("test_callbacks", 0)
totalTime = clock() - startTime # timing ends here
aggregateTime = aggregateTime + totalTime
averageTime = aggregateTime/100
world.Note("Average time (mapped version): " + str(averageTime))
aggregateTime = 0.0
The former code has callback mapped to a local object . Even though there's one extra instruction in
the first snippet, its' loop executes 1.5-2 times faster than the one in the latter function. Though you'd need a microscope to notice the performance gain in the above example, it can become quite noticable if you are
using lots of callbacks in your code. Besides, you could get into a habbit of mapping callbacks locally in your functions anyway - it'll speed up your script in the long run, and there's no reason for not getting some extra speed at the cost of a few more lines of code and a little bit of memory.
| | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
5,418 views.
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif)
top