Re: [q-lang-users] Two proposed improvements to Q

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

John Cowan wrote:
> Startup is rather slower on my Cygwin-based laptop:  comparing average
> wall-clock times for "q </dev/null" and "q --no-prelude </dev/null"
> gives me a library load time of 1.8 seconds, long enough to be quite
> annoying (the interpreter itself starts up in just 0.12 seconds).

That's really slow in either case. Startup with --no-prelude just takes
0.008s on my Linux box, so that's more or less consistent with your
figures (factor of about 10). What kind of CPU and amount of RAM does
your laptop have? Also, did you compile Q with -O3 (CFLAGS=-O3
./configure && make)? That really seems to make a difference with gcc.
Stripping the resulting q and qc executables might help as well, I
noticed that the unstripped executables are rather big, at least with mingw.

In any case, I guess that unbundling the system interface from clib
won't really make a difference in practice, since many average scripts
will need it anyway.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag