> When I have the usb board connected it spends a lot of time
> (~500ms) printing all the frame2.htm web page basic commands
> on the basictools window. Does it still tie up the arm
> trying to print this output when no usb interface is
> connected?
We have the <?BASIC compile and output of that compile going to the USB for
debug, not sure its worth removing. It could conceivably be turned off when the
Autostart/Security is turned on.
The ARMweb would be held up by strings longer than 16 bytes. We should probably
add interrupt service with a larger buffer on transmit at some point. But the
delay should be only 0.5 msec per character.
I haven't really done any benchmarking on how long it takes to compile a web
<?BASIC command and it has to be done each time its accessed, but that may be
the bulk of the 500 ms. Don't look for that to really improve, there's not much
we can do about it.
ARMweb BASIC compile time
-
YahooArchive
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:11 am
Re: ARMweb BASIC compile time
So iis true that having a single <?basic...> is approximately twice as
fast as having two?
I want a table in my web page to display my values (it looks better!).
I could do it by putting a seperate <?basic..?> into each table cell.
Alternatively I could do it by using a single <?basic print
"...<td>val1</td><td>val2..." ?>
fast as having two?
I want a table in my web page to display my values (it looks better!).
I could do it by putting a seperate <?basic..?> into each table cell.
Alternatively I could do it by using a single <?basic print
"...<td>val1</td><td>val2..." ?>
-
YahooArchive
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 5:11 am
Re: ARMweb BASIC compile time
> So its true that having a single <?basic...> is approximately twice as
> fast as having two?
The overhead of starting the compiler is probably not that much. So it would
surprise me if it were twice as long. Its more a function of how complex the
<?BASIC code is that has to be compiled.
> I want a table in my web page to display my values (it looks better!).
> I could do it by putting a seperate <?basic..?> into each table cell.
> Alternatively I could do it by using a single <?basic print
> "...<td>val1</td><td>val2..." ?>
Both would work, you'd have to measure the performance.
You also have to keep in mind the overhead of just doing things through a
network and web browsers and ... Something that may respond well on the bench
with no other network traffic around, may not do what you want when its halfway
across the country over the internet.
> fast as having two?
The overhead of starting the compiler is probably not that much. So it would
surprise me if it were twice as long. Its more a function of how complex the
<?BASIC code is that has to be compiled.
> I want a table in my web page to display my values (it looks better!).
> I could do it by putting a seperate <?basic..?> into each table cell.
> Alternatively I could do it by using a single <?basic print
> "...<td>val1</td><td>val2..." ?>
Both would work, you'd have to measure the performance.
You also have to keep in mind the overhead of just doing things through a
network and web browsers and ... Something that may respond well on the bench
with no other network traffic around, may not do what you want when its halfway
across the country over the internet.