I'd never really been concerned by this much before, but having an issue with a certain mrc file of mine started me pondering...

Is an .inf based script processed faster/slower/similarly (in terms of speed) as the exact same script in a .mrc (or whatever) file?


I only ask because it seems that my RAW formatting script seemed to run faster as a .inf file than a .mrc file.

If you are referring to the extension - a mirc script is a basic text file with commands that mirc can interpret. The extension of the file has no influence on that whatsoever. Or shouldn't have.

I think he means INI file extensions, mirc offers INI and MRC by default. When you save it has a .ini, mirc likes to format the file like this:

[script]
n0=line 1
n1=line 2
n3=line 3
etc...

However, if you save as anything else, it will be saved as plain text:

line 1
line 2
line 3
etc...

So in theory, .mrc should be faster to load than .ini, but mirc keeps scripts in memory, so events like on join should be just as fast either way.

i found that .inis are slower all round, .txts are faster than .mrcs

Slower? Do you mean like *cough* while loops are slower than gotos?

Heh, well I'd tend to agree with him here, I dunno if mIRC uses the built in windows ini functions, but if it does, they are incredibly slow (and ugly). But, if mIRC uses it's own ini reading code, then you'd need to perform some tests to find out, but logic suggests that the .ini file would be slower if not for the simple fact that it has more information to read (the n1= crap).

shush

.mrc files are .txt files, just with a different extension. I haven't tested but I'm 99% sure there won't be any speed difference between them, if there is then I'd probably consider it a bug in mIRC.

.mrc are definitely slower.

im really thinking u have absolutly no idea what the concept of time is. how have u tested this opinion u have? what is your proof to back this up? simply stating it definatly is faster isnt going to get u any points in the your right catagory. when u make a claim u need to have some sort of proof to back it up ..... not just a belief u happen to stumbled upon.

his script order is most likely

Remote01.txt
Remote02.txt
Remote03.txt
Remote04.txt
Remote05.txt
Remote06.mrc

And it has to execute 5 txt's before an mrc, thus making it "slower"

Sorry, yes, I did mean .ini

Silly little typo of mine.


Anyway.

I currently have 16 script files (I like to seperate as much code into different sections as possible), and they are all .mrc files.

As someone pointed out, the file in question is at the lower end (its the 14th script) of the "food chain", so I suspect this could have something to do with it.

Anyway, cheers for the replies

ive never seen any difference in txt and mrc based reading. I think hes just basing it on an assumption somewhere as ive never been able to prove one was faster than the other.

An extension should make no difference, it's the contents that make a difference. A .ini has more information than a .mrc. A .txt and a .mrc have exactly the same information, there should not be any speed difference. In my reply I was simply commenting on the ini slower than mrc portion of his post, I didn't even notice the comment about .txt vs .mrc, I guess mainly because I didn't expect anyone to say something like that...

I can imagine this.



This is complete BS. txt and mrc are identical. They are the same.



Here we go again. Your point has no value whatsoever unless you specify reproducible evidence of it. Until then it's just another round of "This is what I think so that is how it is" BS we went through a while back about yoiur consistent whining about goto loops on your system. An utter waste of time. Please produce the code which can prove your claim or stop talking about it.

well, to solve this problem i made some tests

with this code

alias teste_speed {
var %i = 0, %time = $ticks
while (%i < 100000) { inc %i }
echo total time $calc($ticks - %time)
}

i tested the average times is .txt .mrc and .ini
the times that the alias took to run were the same iven for the ini file that has extra chars in it!!

you can try for your self

no need to thank me

back it up?, i dont need to back anything up...

Then don't waste our time by posting your stupid fraudulent posts.

you're wasting your own time by replying....

We've been here before dude, in case you don't remember. A statement which is the opposite of what abnyone believes should always be accompanied with evidence. Otherwise you're just wasting time and bandwidth, as no one will take you seriously. So if you want what you say to be taken seriously, stop acting like a baby and present your evidence. Otherwise, don't bother typing it out as no one will give you any leverage whatsoever.

i dont care if anyone believes me:\

Nope, you see right now I am sitting in a very boring class at school, one which I really don't feel like paying attention in. But, I can't leave, so I can spend all the time I want replying to your posts and still not be wasting time.

Soon, are you going to make a post "THE WORLD IS FLAT" and then, when we show you pictures of the elliptical Earth will you just say "I don't care if anyone believes me, I know I'm right."? Because that's pretty much exactly what you're saying now...

if .txts are faster or seem to be faster for me, then why should i have to prove it?
i didnt mean they're faster for everyone..
but if i said "the world is flat for me", it wouldnt make sense..

We are not talking about YOU here, it's about time you got that into your brain. We are talking about programming in general, and the way code behaves. We do not talk about one-in-a-kazillion exceptions (which somehow seem to all focus on your computer). We are also not talking about what "seems to be", we are talking about what is. Please do everyone a favor and stop talking like what your computer does as if it is a standard for everyone's system, and if you wanna say what your system does, don't - no one wants to hear it since your system is obviously so different from anyone else's that not even basic programming laws apply, that your comments are not helping the discussion (then again, what discussion - a discussion requires arguments, which you fail to provide every single time).

neither does your excessive whining..
drop it.
i dont need to provide an argument because i have nothing to prove.
if .txts are faster on my system, HOW THE HELL should i know they aren't on yours?, OBVIOUSLY i would say they are faster, because i dont use YOUR computer, so i dont know how YOUR computer reacts.

If you don't provide arguments, stop participating in a discussion.

If you only know what your system does, and don't know of programming in general, keep out of it.

If you don't care of people believe your statements, stop making them.

If you want people to stop whining about how you choose to participate in a discussion, then stop posting in it.

By now you should know that every time we get into programming issues you always resort to the same pointless argument when the other posters all say the exact opposite. Get over it.

so just because the rules of programming says .txt and .mrc are the same speed, that means it must be true?
if you think that you're a fool:p

Well... generally if something is a physical or logical rule then yes, it is true. But like I said, it's possible that .mrc is slower than .txt - it simply defies all logic if it does.

Could people just let up on the angry rant-posts? I can see this thread getting deleted very soon if people keep on posting as they are.

Actually, yes it must. Computers are infernally stupid. They are like vulcans when logic is concerned. They cannot think for themselves. They do exactly as they are told. Also, ever computer task is a combination of extremely simple artihmatic. Therefor yes, when something is true on one system, provided nothing weird happens, it must be true on all systems. Same logic applies by saying that if something works one way on everyone's system, and the other way on your system, then you have a strange system, and your input in discussions is then pointless since no one can use it.

But I already said that before...

Of course if you have something to contribute, you are welcome to do so, but in a discussion about programming, "something to cvontribute" includes arguments, which are codes that show what you mean, that support your statements, etc, and not "It works that way on my system".

maybe it is strange...
maybe i have a virus/worm/trojan/etc making this the case...
but if i find .txts faster than .mrcs on MY system, and i dont try it on ANOTHER system, how should i know my input wont help anyone?, i have no way of knowing this unless i try it on someone elses system, which i wouldn't do anyway.

I take it you have NO idea how the internals of a CPU work? Because your statement there just made me, and everyone in my computer architecture class (who I just showed your post to), and even the professor who has a doctorate in computer science laugh.

good for you :tongue:

The point seem to be that you have provided no evidence that it's even a fact that they are faster on _your_ system. Not even the basic parameters of a scenario where this statement is true. Since this seems unlikely on any system I'm willing to bet that you're wrong, either because you're lying or because you're using flawed metrics. Now, you might not be bothered by the fact that I, and others, will openly say that we think you're wrong, even on your own system. In that case, power to you, please go on. We will. If you are bothered, provide us with the facts (scenario with relevant parameters, tests, and the numbers achieved) and we'll believe you and might even try to recreate your results (the definition of science) and come up with a decent explanation. Or, if somebody questions your honesty about the above numbers, that somebody might not not necessarily believe you, but now at least you've done what you can on your part.

For now, I, and dare I say we, believe that you just haven't tested sufficiently well. That you're wrong. Your unwillingness to share data about your alleged result is so universally typical of fraudulent and badly supported research that I really can come to no other conclusion than that you've got nothing substantial to provide and that you know it your statements aren't likely to survive a real test. Even on your own machine.

Sorry.

welcome to 10 days ago!

yeah well we can also look back 2 months ago and see a very similar arguement from u. i doubt uve learned anything in 10 days as u didnt learn anything inthe time between this incident of validity and the last one.

in future i'll test it on 10 systems first, ok?

id settle for atleast one correct testing method on one system before u go making claims u cant backup. thats all, nothing more than providing some bit of proof when u argue a claim.

how can i prove something that is local to my pc ?

ok in these two cases where is your benchtesting to prove it? to my knowledge all we are workin on is your claim it is faster with nothign to back it up? can u see where im going with that? all anyone asks is proof to test your theory.

The same way I told you several times already, in several posts. When you make a claim like you do, provide code with which you have tested and proven your claim, and your system's results using that code. Then and only then is your argument valid in any discussion. Then again, last time when I told you this all you said wa"s something like "I don't need to back up my claim cause I know it is true", which again, is not an argument. I wonder if you'll get what we are trying to tell you this time. One can hope and dream...

This is a generic reply to all the whinging and bitching going on in this thread about one persons choice of statements

Everyone, stop whinging about everyone else, stop nitpicking on someone elses comments, and just be quiet.

The original thread has been answered.

There is no need for this thread to degenerate any further into a bitch fest.

So move on.

i didn't bench it, i just thought .mrc seemed slightly slower, i could be wrong, i also don't care .