Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [platform-swt-dev] Re: SWT and Photon

Maybe - but when everything but SWT operates wicked fast I tend to blame the
odd-man-out. ;)

    chris

--
  Chris McKillop <cdm@xxxxxxx>     "The faster I go, the behinder I get."
  Software Engineer, QNX                    -- Lewis Carroll --
  http://qnx.wox.org/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Northover" <Steve_Northover@xxxxxxx>
To: <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [platform-swt-dev] Re: SWT and Photon


>
> The other obvious thing that comes to mind is that the Windows native
> widget implemenation and graphics drivers may be faster than other
> platforms ... no flames please.
>
>
>
>
>                       "Chris McKillop"
>                       <cdm@xxxxxxx>                   To:
<platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>                       Sent by:                        cc:
>                       platform-swt-dev-admin@         Subject: Re:
[platform-swt-dev] Re: SWT and Photon
>                       eclipse.org
>
>
>                       09/10/02 02:49 PM
>                       Please respond to
>                       platform-swt-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We shall see.  I am studying the other bindings and, for the most part,
you
> are using things like the win32 API in the same way that an application
> written in C would use the win32 API.  This is not the case with the
photon
> bindings and is the only reason I can see that would account for the
> difference in speed (ie: comparing win32 eclipse to a native app and
> comparing photon eclipse to a native app).  Photon Eclipse (UI speed wise)
> is a lot slower then a native application so the SWT must be doing
> something
> wrong.  A normal photon app never calls malloc/memmove/free to interact
> with
> Photon and so this makes it a prime "finger pointer".
>
> Let the testing being!
>
>     chris
>
> --
>   Chris McKillop <cdm@xxxxxxx>     "The faster I go, the behinder I get."
>   Software Engineer, QNX                    -- Lewis Carroll --
>   http://qnx.wox.org/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Wilson" <Mike_Wilson@xxxxxxx>
> To: <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [platform-swt-dev] Re: SWT and Photon
>
>
> > A ten percent change at the microscopic level is *guaranteed* not to be
> > noticeable in the feel of Eclipse. You need to be shooting for at least
> > double the performance unless it's an API which is called a ludicrous
> > number of times. Even then, performance in the natives really is almost
> > never the bottleneck. That's why we are so adamant about the need for
> > benchmarks.
> >
> > McQ.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris McKillop" <cdm@xxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: platform-swt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 09/09/2002 07:42 PM
> > Please respond to platform-swt-dev
> >
> >
> >         To:     <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        Re: [platform-swt-dev] Re: SWT and Photon
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I'm going to apologize up front for posting this message to the
> > > platform-swt-dev mailing list without asking you first. The comments
> you
> > > were making are *exactly* the kind of discussion I would like to see
> > > happening on the mailing list, so I'm going to use this message as a
> > > seed...
> > >
> >
> > Love to use the list - no worries at all. :)
> >
> > >
> > > What you say below about the "Photon style guide" reminded me of one
of
> > > the places where you have to watch out for "the bigger picture":
> > >   - there are some places in the eclipse UI where code was made to
work
> > a
> > > particular way because we were trying to behave like the platform,
> > >   - and there are other places where the _eclipse_team's_ UI design
> > people
> > > specified a particular appearance,
> > >   - and there are other places where some of the text of the UI was
> > > mandated by the legal people to have a certain look&feel (like the
> About
> > > dialog),
> > >   - and there are other places where the swt team made it work a
> certain
> > > way just 'cause it seemed like a good idea. :-)
> > >  When each of these cases is occurring is not always obvious.
> > >
> >
> > Yep - and I am not really doing anything drastic.  In fact, I have
> > examples
> > online of the differences in the chnages I am doing:
> >
> > http://qnx.wox.org/swt/
> >
> > Please - anyone and everyone comment.  Thus far it has primarily been
> > picking which fonts are being used and how the Group widget is created.
> > The
> > changes are somtimes subtle, so it is best to have both the before and
> the
> > after shots side-by-side.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > As to the rest of what you've said, one of the fundamental design
> > > philosophies of SWT is _no_custom_C_code_. When you talk about adding
> > new
> > > JNI methods below, I got *very* nervous. At the very least, before you
> > go
> > > down that path, you need to provide us with compelling benchmark
> > > information which shows that writing C code equivalents of some of the
> > > existing methods will be a *significant* performance win. That's both
> at
> > > the microscopic and the macroscopic (i.e. eclipse runs significantly
> > > better) level. Just so you know, our experience on other platforms has
> > > been that, writing C code for performance tuning purposes frequently
> > > provides very little real-world benefit versus the equivalent
> > JIT-compiled
> > > java code.
> > >
> >
> > See, I am not trying to change things algorithmically.  I totally agree,
> > doing the algorithims in java vs. C will not be a huge difference in
> > speed.
> > But, if I can remove expensive system calls that don't need to be made
> > when
> > the function is written in C, there will be a big BIG win (thinking
> > malloc,
> > memmove, free).  So, where does one draw the performance increase lines?
> > ;)
> > It is very hard to measure the performance under Eclipse (macroscopic)
so
> > that will have to be a "feel" issue.  As for the microscopic - Would a
> 10%
> > increase in speed justify the change?  More?  Less?
> >
> > Just so you know, I will be doing my test cases on a P166 - both macro
> and
> > micro.  This way speed changes will be more prononouced.  And it is also
> > more indicative of the class of processors QNX and OTI's customers are
> > using
> > today with Photon.
> >
> >     chris
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > platform-swt-dev mailing list
> > platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-swt-dev mailing list
> platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-swt-dev mailing list
> platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev
>



Back to the top