I am making an app with a TON of features. My problem is that applescript seems to have a cut-off point. After a certain number of lines, the script stopps working. It basically only works until the end. Once it gets to that point it stops. I have moved the code around to make sure that it is not an error within the code. Help?
I might be wrong, but I believe a long script is not a good way to put your code.
It's really hard to read, to debug or to maintain as one slight change in a part can have unexpected consequences at the other part of you file.
If your script is very long, I suggest you break your code in multiple parts.
First, you may use functions if some part of the code is reused several times.
Another benefit of the functions is that you can validate them separately from the rest of the execution code.
Besides, it makes your code easier to read.
on doWhatYouHaveTo(anArgument)
say "hello!"
end doWhatYouHaveTo
If the functions are used by different scripts, you may want to have your functions in a seperate library that you will call at need.
set cc to load script alias ((path to library folder as string) & "Scripts:Common:CommonLibrary.app")
cc's doWhatYouHaveTo(oneArgument)
At last, a thing that I sometimes do is calling a different script with some arguments, if a long code fits for slightly different purposes:
run script file {mainFileName} with parameters {oneWay}
This last trick has a great yet curious benefit : it can accelerate the execution time for a reason I never explained (and when I say accelerate, I say reduce execution time by 17 or so for the very same code).
Related
After developing an elaborate TCL code to do smoothing based on Gabriel Taubin's smoothing without shape shrinkage, the code runs extremely slow. This is likely due to the size of unstructured grid I am smoothing. I have to use TCL because the grid generator I am using is Pointwise and Pointwise's "macro language" is TCL based. I'm still a bit new to this, but is there a way to run an external code from TCL where TCL sends the data to the software, the software runs the smoothing operation, and output is sent back to TCL to update the internal data inside the Pointwise grid generation tool? I will be writing the smoothing tool in another language which is significantly faster.
There are a number of options to deal with code that "runs extremely show". I would start with determining how fast it must run. Are we talking milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours or days. Next it is necessary to determine which part is slow. The time command is useful here.
But assuming you have decided that more performance is necessary and you have some metrics for your current program so you will know if you are improving, here are some things to try:
Try to improve the existing code. If you are using the expr command, make sure your expressions are given to the command as a single argument enclosed in braces. Beginners sometimes forget this and the improvement can be substantial.
Use the critcl package to code parts of the program in "C". Critcl allows you to put "C" code directly into your Tcl program and have that code pulled out, compiled and loaded into your program.
Write a traditional "C" based Tcl extension. Tcl is very extensible and has a clean API for building extensions. There is sample code for extensions and source to many extensions is readily available.
Write a program to do the time consuming part of the job and execute it as a separate process and obtain the output back into your Tcl script. This is where the exec command comes in useful. Presumably you will have to write data out to some where the program can get it and read the output of the program back into your Tcl script. If you want to get fancy you can do two-way communications across a localhost TCP port. The set up in Tcl is quite simple. The "C" code in a program to do it is a bit more tedious, but many examples exist out on the Internet.
Which option to choose depends very much on how much improvement is required and the amount of code that must be improved. You haven't given us much idea what those things are in your case, so all I can offer is rather vague general solutions.
For a loadable module, you can write a Tcl extension. An example is here:
File Last Modified Time with Milliseconds Precision
Alternatively, just write your program to take input from a file. Have Tcl write the input data to the file, run the program, then collect the output from the external program.
I understand that interpreter translates your source code into machine code line by line, and stops when it encounters an error.
I am wondering, what does an interpreter do when you give it for loops.
E.g. I have the following (MATLAB) code:
for i = 1:10000
pi*pi
end
Does it really run through and translate the for loop line by line 10000 times?
With compilers is the machine code shorter, consisting only of a set of statements that include a go to control statement that is in effect for 10000 iterations.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense, I don't have very good knowledge of the underlying bolts and nuts of programming but I want to quickly understand.
I understand that interpreter translates your source code into machine code line by line, and stops when it encounters an error.
This is wrong. There are many different types of interpreters, but very few execute code line-by-line and those that do (mostly shells) don't generate machine code at all.
In general there are four more-or-less common ways that code can be interpreted:
Statement-by-statement execution
This is presumably what you meant by line-by-line, except that usually semicolons can be used as an alternative for line breaks. As I said, this is pretty much only done by shells.
How this works is that a single statement is parsed at a time. That is the parser reads tokens until the statement is finished. For simple statements that's until a statement terminator is reached, e.g. the end of line or a semicolon. For other statements (such as if-statements, for-loops or while-loops) it's until the corresponding terminator (endif, fi, etc.) is found. Either way the parser returns some kind of representation of the statement (some type of AST usually), which is then executed. No machine code is generated at any point.
This approach has the unusual property that syntax error at the end of the file won't prevent the beginning of the file from being executed. However everything is still parsed at most once and the bodies of if-statements etc. will still be parsed even if the condition is false (so a syntax error inside an if false will still abort the script).
AST-walking interpretation
Here the whole file is parsed at once and an AST is generated from it. The interpreter then simply walks the AST to execute the program. In principle this is the same as above, except that the entire program is parsed first.
Bytecode interpretation
Again the entire file is parsed at once, but instead of an AST-type structure the parser generates some bytecode format. This bytecode is then executed instruction-by-instruction.
JIT-compilation
This is the only variation that actually generates machine code. There are two variations of this:
Generate machine code for all functions before they're called. This might mean translating the whole file as soon as it's loaded or translating each function right before it's called. After the code has been generated, execute it.
Start by interpreting the bytecode and then JIT-compile specific functions or code paths individually once they have been executed a number of times. This allows us to make certain optimizations based on usage data that has been collected during interpretation. It also means we don't pay the overhead of compilation on functions that aren't called a lot. Some implementations (specifically some JavaScript engines) also recompile already-JITed code to optimize based on newly gathered usage data.
So in summary: The overlap between implementations that execute the code line-by-line (or rather statement-by-statement) and implementations that generate machine code should be pretty close to zero. And those implementations that do go statement-by-statement still only parse the code once.
I am trying to understand the code in this page: https://github.com/corroded/git-achievements/blob/gh-pages/git-achievements
and I'm kinda at a loss on how it actually works. I do know some bash and shell scripting, but how does this script actually "store" how many times you've used a command(im guessing saving into a text file?) and how does it "sense" that you actually typed in a git command? I have a feeling it's line 464 onwards that does it but I don't seem to quite follow the logic.
Can anyone explain this in a bit more understandable context?
I plan to do some achievements for other commands and I hope to have an idea on HOW to go about it without randomly copying and pasting stuff and voodoo.
Yes on 464 start the script, everything before are helping functions. I dont know how it gets installed, but I would assume you have to call this script instead of the normal git-command. It just checks if the first parameter is achievement, and if not then just (regular) git with the rest parameters is executed. Afterwards he checks if an error happend (if he exits). And then he just makes log_action and check_for_achievments. log_action just writes the issued command with a date into a text file, while achievments scans for that log file for certains events. If you want to add another achievment you have to do it in this check_for_achievments.
Just look how the big case handles it (most of the achievments call the count_function which counts the # usages of the function and matches when a power of 2 is reached).
I've inherited a medium sized project in which the main (batch) program is fed work through a large set of shell scripts that do a lot of process control (waiting for process to complete, sleeping, checking for conditions, etc) [ and reprocessed through perl scripts ]
Are there other examples of process control by shell scripts ? I would like to see what other people have done as a comparison. (as i'm not really fond of the 6,668 line shell script)
It may lead to that the current program works and doesn't need to be messed with or for maintenance reasons - it's too cumbersome and doing it another way will be easier to maintain, but I need other examples.
To reduce the "generality" of the question here's an example of what I'm looking for: procsup
Inquisitor project relies on process control from shell scripts extensively. You might want to see it's directory with main function set or directory with tests (i.e. slave processes) that it runs.
This is quite general question, and therefore giving specific answers may be a little bit difficult. (And you wont be happy with 5000 lines long example.) Most probably architecture of your application is faulty, and requires rather complete rework.
As you probably already know, process control with bash is pretty simple:
./test_script.sh &
test_script_pid=$!
wait $test_script_pid # waits until it's done
./test_script2.sh
echo $? # Prints return code of previous command
You can do same things with for example Python subprocess (or with Perl, obviously). If you have complex architecture with large number of different programs, then process is obviously non-trivial.
That is an awfully bug shell script. Have you considered refactoring it?
From the sound of it, there may be a lot of instances where you could replace several lines of code with a call to a shell function. If you can simplify the code in this way, then it will be easier to see where there are errors in the logic.
I've used this tactic successfully with a humongous PERL script and it turned out to have some serious logic errors and to be a security risk because it had embedded passwords that were obfuscated in an easily reversible way. The passwords that were exposed could have been used by persons unknown (well, a disgruntled employee) to shut down an entire global network.
Some managers were leaning towards making a security exception because this script was so important, but when the logic error was explained and it was clear that this script was providing incorrect data, it was decided that no data was better than dirty data. The guy who wrote that script taught himself programming with a PERL book and the writing of the script.
I have a Perl script that runs via a system() command from C. On a specific site (SunOS 5.10), when that script is run, it nearly always takes 6 seconds or more. On other sites, it runs pretty much instantly (0.1s). If I run the script manually, i.e. not from the C code, it also runs instantly. I eventually tracked the slowness down (by spitting out the time a whole bunch in a lot of different places), to a single require line. The file that it is requiring is another Perl script we wrote. The script consists of a single require (this file here), 3 scalars that are assigned integer values, and a handful of time/date conversion routines. The file ends with a 1;. That single require appears to take as much as 6 seconds on occasion, but as I said, not always even on the same machine. I'm absolutely stumped here. My only last thought is to turn on profiling, but the site doesn't have Devel::Profiler and my only other option (that I know of) would be to add it to the Perl command which would require me altering and recompiling the C code (doable but non-trivial).
Anybody have ANY idea what could be going on here? I don't think I can/want to put the entire date.pl that is being required, but it's pretty much exactly as I described; I could answer any questions about it that you have.
Thanks in advance.
You might be interested in A Timely Start by Jean-Louis Leroy. He had a similar problem and tracked it down to a long and deep module search path where perl usually found the modules in the last entries in #INC.
Six seconds is a long time. Have you checked what your network is doing during this?
My first thought was that spawning the new process when using the system() command could be the problem, but six seconds is too long.
I don't know much about perl, but I could imagine that for any reason, the access of the time module could invoke a call to a network time server. Just to get synchronized. Maybe this takes so long or maybe it is getting a time out.
It could be that this only happens for a newly spawned process -- hence only when you use the system() command.
just wild guessing...
So, this does nothing to answer your question directly, but please tell me that you're not actually running on perl 4? Assuming you're on perl 5, you could remove the entire file and replace the require with use POSIX qw(ctime) to get the version that comes with Perl.
If you do have to support perl4, I'll merely grumble something about version 5 being fifteen years old now and go away. :)