Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a "send" object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins.
cheers Miller
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:36:33PM -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Miller Puckette wrote:
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a "send" object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins.
If you are sending a variable number of elements then the [s] wins because the messagebox can't do it... jMax did it... there has been a proposal to have support for $* in Pd as well.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
Hallo, Miller Puckette hat gesagt: // Miller Puckette wrote:
I've never profiled it, but I think for a single number, using a "send" object is more efficient, but for anything else (like if you have to use a message box anyway to format the message or if you're sending more than one) the message box wins.
Hm, but isn't that an unfair comparison? Just for sending stuff, I've found that [send] is way faster than a message box, regardless if I'm sending a number only or longer lists. ([s] is almost twice as fast in the little benchmark I posted.)
If one also does some formatting operations, then that's something, a pure [send] cannot do, no fair benchmark comparison could be made between a [send] and a message alone, as the [send] would need an additional msg-box.
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a
[loadbang] | [13] | [s value]
construction for each value.
this:
[loadbang] |__________________ |; / |value 34 | |somevalue 127 | |othervalue 57 | |yoyo 1___________\
looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it?
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a
[loadbang] | [13] | [s value]
construction for each value.
this:
[loadbang] |__________________ |; / |value 34 | |somevalue 127 | |othervalue 57 | |yoyo 1___________\
looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it?
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
True - i could never understand why this isn't the case. But i
remember that there have been related discussions on the list months
or years ago
greetings, Thomas
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:10 schrieb marius schebella:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the
same result. marius.Roman Haefeli wrote:
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but
there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one
message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a[loadbang] | [13] | [s value]
construction for each value.
this:
[loadbang] |__________________ |; / |value 34 | |somevalue 127 | |othervalue 57 | |yoyo 1___________\
looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it?
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";- messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more
efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so it's
not clear what $0 would mean in a message box. Making $0 in a
message box behave like $0 in an object box could be a quick hack,
but it could also have ramifications going forward.
.hc
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:20 PM, Thomas Grill wrote:
True - i could never understand why this isn't the case. But i remember that there have been related discussions on the list months or years ago greetings, Thomas
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:10 schrieb marius schebella:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so
much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.Roman Haefeli wrote:
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was
the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a[loadbang] | [13] | [s value]
construction for each value.
this:
[loadbang] |__________________ |; / |value 34 | |somevalue 127 | |othervalue 57 | |yoyo 1___________\
looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it?
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";- messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more
efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http:// messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
kill your television
Am 16.08.2007 um 19:32 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so
it's not clear what $0 would mean in a message box.
Sure but $0 means something different than $1 etc. in an object box
too, so i don't see the point.
Making $0 in a message box behave like $0 in an object box could be
a quick hack, but it could also have ramifications going forward.
As I guess it's just a question of doing it, the conference would be
a good place to discuss it.
greetings, Thomas
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
To start with, $ args mean different things in message boxes, so it's not clear what $0 would mean in a message box. Making $0 in a message box behave like $0 in an object box could be a quick hack, but it could also have ramifications going forward.
$0 in objectboxes is already inconsistent with $1,$2,$3,... in objectboxes, so, it's not clear that $0 in messagebox has to be consistent with anything at all.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada
actually, it isn't a mess at all, i think. i try to illustrate it with my previous example:
[loadbang] | [$0] |_____________________ |; / |$1-value 34 | |$1-somevalue 127 | |$1-othervalue 57 | |$1-yoyo 1___________\
though, i wouldn't be against dollarzeros in message boxes, as well.
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 13:10 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
it is a pity that there is no $0 in messages. that would help so much! most of the time I use local send/receive like s $0-blabla. with messages you always have to mess with workaounds to achieve the same result. marius.
Roman Haefeli wrote:
i don't know if there is a technical difference in efficiency, but there is a difference in use. at least before 0.40, using [; $1 $2( was the only way to achieve a settable send. there is also a cosmetic aspect: if you want to collect some initial values together at some place, it is much nicer to have only one message box, where all values can be stored instead of having a
[loadbang] | [13] | [s value]
construction for each value.
this:
[loadbang] |__________________ |; / |value 34 | |somevalue 127 | |othervalue 57 | |yoyo 1___________\
looks much nicer and is easier to edit, isn't it?
roman
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 12:36 -0400, marius schebella wrote:
Hey, when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference? is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?). this is not urgent, I can sleep without an answer! just curious. marius.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";-messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference?
I cannot speak for Miller, but one difference with message-senders is, that you send to various receivers in one go:
[; detune 0.2; freq 440; vol 80; ...(
which sometimes is handy for initializing many things with one click and in a central place.
Also msg-bangs will warn, if there is no receiver available. send-sends just send and ignore it, if they send to nothing.
is one more efficient then the other
send-sends are much more effective than msg-sends, I suppose mostly because of dollar-variable replacements. See attached benchmark-patch.
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Aug 16, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, marius schebella hat gesagt: // marius schebella wrote:
when I look through miller's tutorial patches, I often find ";- messages" instead of a send object like: [;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference?
I cannot speak for Miller, but one difference with message-senders is, that you send to various receivers in one go:
[; detune 0.2; freq 440; vol 80; ...(
which sometimes is handy for initializing many things with one click and in a central place.
Yeah, it's a syntactic shortcut, but one click init is also possible
using sends.
Also msg-bangs will warn, if there is no receiver available. send-sends just send and ignore it, if they send to nothing.
Hmm, that sounds to me like a bug. I don't see why these should
behave differently in this respect.
is one more efficient then the other
send-sends are much more effective than msg-sends, I suppose mostly because of dollar-variable replacements. See attached benchmark-patch.
Nice patch, that's a substantial difference. I got 80 for sendsends
and 150 for msgsends.
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ <benchmark-sends.pd> <sendsend.pd> <msgsend.pd> _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic.
It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and
expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war
on terrorism. - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, marius schebella wrote:
[;detune $1( vs [s detune] I wonder why, is there a significant difference?
It used to be that ";" was the only one to allow a variable destination (more so than just the $1 of an abstraction...) whereas [s] was the only one to send messages of variable size. now in 0.40 both can be done at the same time using [s]. If using Johannes' $* feature, you'd also be able to do both in a messagebox.
is one more efficient then the other (if yes, I always thought send is more efficient..?).
i'd say that it depends on the situation, but if you can't measure the difference, then it does not matter. You could use [realtime] and [until] with a big enough number of repetitions if you want to benchmark it. If you want to measure just the messagebox and not measure the [until] that you have to use with it, then you will have to subtract the time of an [until] alone. If you try to do it only with one message without [until], your result will be really imprecise.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal QC Canada