Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!wj.msc.umn.edu!ken
From: ken@wj.msc.umn.edu (Ken Chin-Purcell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Reforming Mac Programming (longish, ~60 lines)
Message-ID: <1492@uc.msc.umn.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 90 21:11:34 GMT
References: <2346@husc6.harvard.edu> <13828@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1990Mar26.180116.8814@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@uc.msc.umn.edu
Reply-To: ken@msc.umn.edu
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center
Lines: 25

In article <1990Mar26.180116.8814@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, 
       philip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) writes:

> I benchmarked the cost of going through SANE on a Mac II a while back, using
> a program to draw a nice Mandelbrot set picture on a 19" screen. The direct
> calls were about 18 times faster than going through SANE (using Think
> Pascal 2).

Another data point, using MPW Pascal 2.0:  I wrote a commercial 
MacApp program for mechanism synthesis.  Parts of this program
were very numericaly intensive, including sqrt() and trig functions,
while other parts did mostly tree building, searches, and drawing.
I would suspect that most CAD programs have a similar
balance of integer/real/drawing computations.

When changing the 'design curves', which involves both calculations
and drawing on the fly, the relative speeds came out to be:

Mac II, direct 68881 calls ....... 1.0
Mac II, SANE calls ............... 2.0
Mac Plus, SANE calls ............ 10.0

|||  Ken Chin-Purcell
|||  also known as ken@msc.umn.edu and (612) 626-1340
|||  Minnesota Supercomputer Center, University of Minnesota