home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8!ward1
- From: ward1@husc8.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
- Subject: Re: How magic is the CompileIt?
- Message-ID: <ward1.714517700@husc8>
- Date: 22 Aug 92 21:08:20 GMT
- References: <15AUG199209103159@oregon.uoregon.edu> <1992Aug16.033156.6692@reed.edu> <1992Aug22.004656.7727@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
- Lines: 24
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
-
- jahnke@biosci.arizona.edu (Jerome Jahnke) writes:
-
- >In article <1992Aug16.033156.6692@reed.edu>, sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
- >> I thought HC 2.0 compiled scripts on its first execution of them and
- >> stashed them in RAM, so why would compileIt be faster? At least, why
- >> would it be 50 times faster?
-
- >CompileIt actually generates 680x0 microcode.
-
- Right, it turns HyperTalk functions into compiled XFCN code resources. It
- also lets you call Toolbox routines directly from HyperTalk, as well as
- declare the variable types upon which the Toolbox operates and other structs
- (like your own arrays!).
-
- The fine print is that CompileIt can actually make your code .slower.. Any
- time you get information from or otherwize call back to HyperCard, you slow
- down your script. How to get around this is very well documented in the
- CompileIt manual. (As an example, if you 'get the clickLoc' in your script,
- ComilieIt will have to call back to hyperCard and call the clickLoc function.
- You should replace that line with the Toolbox call which does the same thing
- (I forget the name), so that the compiled script will get the click location
- from the Mac directlt instead of through hyperCard.)
-
- Wordman
-