Anonymous user
Talk:Word wrap: Difference between revisions
→REXX timings: added some comments.
(→REXX timings: made a comment about strike-outs. -- ~~~~) |
(→REXX timings: added some comments.) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 206:
:: Translated version 2 to PL/I. Since PL/I has a limit of 32767 for character strings I had to cut the input into junks of 20000 bytes and add extra reads. Output is identical to REXX. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The last shown REXX program has a problem with classic REXX: '''fn''' is an unknown function. Also, that REXX program only reads the first record of the file (does exactly one read) instead of doing a loop until done. It would make more sense to exclude the time to read the file as well as bypassing the writing of the records to the file, as the I/O would be unvarying and slightly
-----
Line 248:
:: version 0 and 1 remove them and reduce multiple blanks to one blank. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
::: What about version zero ??? REXX version 0 and 1 already removes leading and multiple
:::: that's what I tried to say. the '1' got lost.--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 22:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Line 276:
:::::* REXX version 2 1.05 seconds (optimized by making the '''ow''' subroutine non-destructive)
:::::* REXX version 2 1.01 seconds (optimized by making the '''ow''' subroutine in-line)
:::::* REXX version 2 0.96 seconds (optimized the inner DO loop, eliminated an '''if''' statement)
The '''lastpos''' BIF was used to find the last blank (within a field of '''W''' characters instead of searching for the last blank character by character).
<br>Further optimization was done using '''parse''' instead of '''substr''' and other such thingys. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Line 292:
:: 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)
::: Rosetta Code isn't the place to publish such observations. I know a snub when I hear (or read) one. Best to just remove such comments, even from a discussion page. Even if it were true, its still not an unbiased opinion or possible not even a valid observation (too limited and narrow), and it might appear that it could be based on a limited sampling group (and by one person at that). Not everybody has a spell-checker available. Without spell-checkers, typos are more common. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 03:24, 17 August 2018 (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)
::::: I guess some people like to be known. However, Rosetta Code has a policy against vanity badges and strongly discouraged, and most have been removed. People can look at the ''history''' file and see who performed the entering of the computer program and/or the changes. I have learned later (after I did the tuning and timings) that timings are also discouraged, especially between languages. This whole discussion on the REXX timings should probably be deleted.
<br>Here is the latest revision (with not much commenting, but better than nothing):
Line 373 ⟶ 378:
:: Let's leave it at that. I shall be using lastpos in the future. thanks. Nevertheless version 2 seems to be undoubtedly better than !?! --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 05:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
::: I wouldn't agree that your version is ''undoubtedly'' better. I do have a few doubts. Version one version doesn't erase existing files, it also has more options (the ''kind'' of text justifications, giving the user a choice), it has as lot more documentation (comments) to explain what is happening and why, has error checking and error messages to handle bad command line options, checks for file-not-found and file-is-empty conditions, etc. I assume you must be using a different or unknown metric(s) for ''undoubtedly better". Rosetta Code is not the place to crow about one's version being better than another, '''unless''' you wrote both versions and you're pointing out the value (however one judges ''value'') of one program entry versus another. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 03:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
| |||