Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

[Paolo Molaro <lupus ximian com>]

On 03/22/01 James Henstridge wrote:
> Just out of interest, are those times for startup only, or startup and
> shutdown?

They were measured with time python testfile.py, so yes, they
include shutdown time. Adding an exit call after the gtk import
improves things a little bit (0.715 -> 0.670 on the same setup).
BTW: I just checked the python modules were actually precompiled
and they are (if I delete the .py[co] files times get much worse,
I wish precompiling perl code could get the same 4x speed 
improvements:-).

> > So, the perl binding loads 3 times faster when there is an already running
> > interpreter. It would be interesting to have the numbers for smaller
> > machines, though.
> 
> Some of the improvements in head pygtk come from having less python code
> in the binding, and implementing more in the C extension.  This also
> increases the number of pages that can be shared between processes.

That was my guess (lot of time spent interpreting code) when I saw
no improvement over multiple runs: getting more code in C should 
improve this quite a bit. 
My current memory optimization trick is to export to perl the functions 
in a widget class only when that widget class is accessed: this saves
quite a bit of memory usage and once the class is loaded, the method
calls are as fast as if they were loaded from the beginning. Startup
time is not affected much by this change, though.

lupus

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
lupus debian org                                     debian/rules
lupus ximian com                             Monkeys do it better

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers