Re: Ada95 speed

["James E. Hopper" <hopperj@macconnect.com>]

> 
> This code is not the algorithm that comes with the fractal  demo program of
> CodeBuilder 1.1 which incidentally doesn't work at all (error 84). The
> Mandelbrot demo that comes with CodeBuilder is based on the "Manhattan
> distance" instead of the straight line Euclidean distance. None of the
> mac-specific demo programs work except sillyballs and hello.
> 

yes there was an error on the cd, the resource forks of some of the
demo programs (the ones you say don't work) were damaged before the cd
was cut.  the proper examples are on tenons ftp site as john matthews
has already told you.  i don't understand why you are perpetuating this
idea that the demo apps are somehow wrong.  i have run all of the demo
programs with 4.1.1 except the one that has tasking.  that is a problem
right now that i am still working to corect in standalone mac apps.
tasking works fine in unix apps.


> I will include the corrected program in full below. I say the graphics should
> work fifty times faster and the color numbers should to be computed much
> faster. I challenge you to make it run that fast without "jumping through
> hoops" and "threading needles". And I assert that slow execution times of
> programs like this are deliberate sabotage of the so called "computer
> revolution".
> 


Of course i used cleaver tricks, jumped through hoops etc to get it to
run faster.  every computer programmer who wanted performacs since day
one has done that.  you take the example of a program from the past
which you have NO information on how many hoops it jumped through, and
compare it to your source code.  the only legitimate comparison that
could be made to support your argument is to take the original source
and compile and run it for your IIfx and the newer powerpc examples.  i
took your code that had the graphis out of it, and it runs in about 1.5
seconds on my 300mhz beige g3 machine with your unmodified source code. 
you compare that to an unknown algorithm taking 10 seconds on a IIfx. 
theres no resonable comparison or conclusions that can be made from
such a bogus pair of numbers.  instead compile your code for the IIfx
(there is a gnat for 68k macs though an older version) and see how fast
it runs, then compare that to the current 450mhz g3s.  that would still
have the problem of difference in compiler versions but we could at
least discuss that comparison.

also realize that you are running your example on a unix that is
sharing time with the macOS.  you don't know how much time is being
taken by MacOS in the background from your program while its running.

in short you have zero evidence that there is any "slow execution
times" in this example becuase you have nothing valid to compare it to!


jim