brbrofsvl at gmail.com
Mon Oct 5 19:57:18 CEST 2015
Agreed, "drip" is awful. I had one included and then removed it because I
hated the name, and it's not that much to hook an iterator to a table
reader (and you have the indices to work with in whatever way you need as
Speaking of which, on my machine [array get] is faster than plain
[tabread]. It can get lists of about 30 from an array about as fast as
[tabread] can get single floats. Weird, but cool.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:39 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at> wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 05:39 PM, Christof Ressi wrote:
> > You're right that it's easy to implement as an abstraction but I was
> rather thinking about execution speed.
> > I guess a fictional object like [array drip] that would just iterate
> through the array using a C loop would be the fastest possible method.
> well no: the fastest possible way would probably be hand-optimized
> > I don't see how you could even get close to that with abstractions,
> especially when using only vanilla objects.
> i don't think that in practice this would matter though.
> an [array-drip]¹ implementation in Pd-vanilla should be O(n).
> an [array drip] implementation in C should be O(n).
> sure, the abstraction implementation will perform worse by a (constant)
> factor but the complexity stays the same which is the important part.
> i assume that the cases where you do need that extra speed boost are
> rather seldom, and do not warrant an extra built-in object.
> ¹ it always causes me pain to see the name "drip" used so widely.
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list