[oopic] Re: Optimizing code

Thanx I'll try both of your suggestions (soon) and let you know what
I find.
Little tricks like using Byte rather than oByte, and better use of
VCs, that's the type of info I'm looking for.

I read somewhere in the docs that use of constants can save variable
memory, but if it ain't working I'll go with whatever is easier.

I have some 32k EEPROMs so I can go wild with programming and data
space. Now I have some work to do! Like I said, speed isn't a
priority (unless we are REALLY talking slow!) but I do want to try
coding some more advanced 'behavior' using the available variables
and objects.

Thanks again for the advice!

--- In oopic@yahoogroups.com, "rtstofer" <rstofer@...> wrote:
>
> --- In oopic@yahoogroups.com, "red71956" <kdwyer@> wrote:
> >
> > I uploaded a (not-yet-finished) file - OttoExplorer - that uses
79
> > bytes of RAM, close to the limit of 86. I made very liberal use
of
> > cut 'n paste so you may find many sections familiar. I tried to
keep it
> > well-commented.
> > I used: an LCD, sonar, IR, pan/tilt servos, 2 DC motors, and lots
of
> > Constants.
> > My understanding is that using constants will store values in
EEPROM,
> > freeing up limited system resources. I also know that using VCs
> > (virtual circuits) can help speed program execution.
> >
> > Is there a trick I am missing, or misusing? I'd luv some advice
on how
> > to optimize the code (esp. with VCs) so I can get the most out of
my
> > ooPIC. I tend to write sloppy code, so tightening up the code and
> > making best use of resources is important. Execution speed is not
as
> > important to me as maximizing use of limited ooPIC resources.
> >
> > The code is far from finished, but it is a good start, and
hopefully
> > easy to follow. It is for a B2.2+ ooPIC using V6 compiler.
> >
>
> Your resource limitation is object memory. Adding VS's won't
> necessarily improve that. In fact, the oBus or oWire objects will
> probably increase the usage.
>
> Sub explore() could probably be replaced by a VC that triggers an
> event and the event code would trigger avoid() function. But all
that
> would do is collapse the explore() function and eliminate the loop
in
> main().
>
> Using the named constants doesn't result in any less object memory
and
> may not really change the code space requirements either. Write a
> simple program like:
>
> dim a as new oByte
> const SixtyFour = 64
>
> sub main()
> a = 64
> a = SixtyFour
> end sub
>
> Then look at the emitted code and see if the two are different. I'm
> not on a Windows box at the moment so I can't really test this. I
> doubt they are different. YEARS ago, with interpreted Basic, named
> constants were faster that numeric constants; depending on the
> interpreter, of course.
>
> You might try using Byte instead of oByte and save a little object
memory.
>
> Richard
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oopic-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:oopic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oopic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/