whats faster, initialize component, or form load?

[=?Utf-8?B?cm9nZXJfMjc=?=]

hey, I have some preliminary code in my program (check for a certain file,
define a like 15 variables) and I put it in the form load. I recently got
the idea to make a method for it, and do it in the constructor method instead.

would this make the load time of the program faster? or is it the same as
leaving it in the form load.? any thoughts or ideas on this?

thanks.

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Roger,

It is not impossible that you win with that 30 picoseconds.
Although for the same it can be 30 picoseconds longer.

Of course the real time depends on your computer, your file IO and your type
of network.

:-)

Cor

"roger_27" <ro*****@discussions.microsoft.comschreef in bericht
news:3B**********************************@microsof t.com...

hey, I have some preliminary code in my program (check for a certain file,
define a like 15 variables) and I put it in the form load. I recently got
the idea to make a method for it, and do it in the constructor method
instead.

would this make the load time of the program faster? or is it the same as
leaving it in the form load.? any thoughts or ideas on this?

thanks.

[Peter Duniho]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 11:08:03 -0700, roger_27
<ro*****@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:

hey, I have some preliminary code in my program (check for a certain
file,
define a like 15 variables) and I put it in the form load. I recently
got
the idea to make a method for it, and do it in the constructor method
instead.

would this make the load time of the program faster? or is it the same as
leaving it in the form load.? any thoughts or ideas on this?

Measure it and see.

I doubt you'll find any significant difference. But there's only one way
to know for sure.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:46:08 -0700, Cor Ligthert [MVP]
<no************@planet.nlwrote:

[...]
However, I assume that you never have worked with large mainframes. I was
using some words from that area, where parallelization is a topic already
for I think about 25 years.

There's a saying: when you assume something, you make an "ass" out of "u
(you)" and "me".

Don't assume. I have a fair amount of experience with both mainframes and
parallelization. In fact, in the late 80's I spent some time working at
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center with their VAX/VMS computers and the
MPP computer ("Massively Parallel Processing") that NASA and Goodyear
built.

You may now visit that computer at the National Air & Space Museum's
Udvar-Hazy facility, in Dulles, Virginia.

Granted, that was a SIMD computer, different from the vector
supercomputers and MIMD parallelization best know on the PC side (though
MMX was SIMD, and there are other SIMD implementations on PCs as well).
But my experience with parallelization isn't limited to that work either.

Therefore give me the words you don't understand, than I will change
them to
more regular at the moment used PC words.

It's not an issue of vocabulary. It's the grammar. For example: "I say
parallalisation cost forever procestime". That's meaningless in English,
and I'm unable to convert it something that is meaningful.

Note: I do make an effort to try to figure out what people are writing
even if English isn't their native language. I recognize this is a global
forum, and I see no reason to insist that everyone use English perfectly.
However, for better or worse, English _is_ the standard language here, and
I cannot help it if someone who isn't very good at English hasn't written
something that makes sense in Englih. All I can do is alert them to the
communication barrier and hope that they can rephrase what they wrote, so
that it can be understood.

This is not intended to disparage you or in any way treat your posts
badly. Your English is obviously far better than my Dutch (or whatever).
But it does still need work, and if you are expecting to communicate using
English, you need to be prepared for someone to say, simply, "I'm sorry, I
don't understand".

None of this has anything to do with the technical errors in what you
wrote. As far as I _did_ understand your posts, they were not accurate,
IMHO.

Beside that I am using consequently Parallelisation instead of
Parallelization. That is standard for somebody from Amsterdam; we don't
use
the z or c only the s. Beside that there are more typos. However, I have
never seen that Usenet demands to use correct spelled English in a
message.

I'm not talking about spelling differences. I'm talking about words that
when put next to each other do not construct semantically meaningful
phrases.

Pete

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Peter Duniho wrote:

Don't assume. I have a fair amount of experience with both mainframes
and parallelization. In fact, in the late 80's I spent some time
working at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center with their VAX/VMS
computers and the MPP computer ("Massively Parallel Processing") that
NASA and Goodyear built.

Hmm.

Those VAX'es were minicomputers not mainframes.

(the only VAX'es that comes close to be mainframes is the 9000 and
10000 series and the first of those came out in 1990)

And the MPP were a supercomputer not a mainframe.

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:51:43 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

Those VAX'es were minicomputers not mainframes.

Ahh...some more pedantry. It's like you can't live without it or
something.

There was nothing "mini" about the VAX computers at that facility and by
the 80's, pretty much anything that didn't didn't fit on a desktop was
often referred to as a "mainframe", at least among the people I was with.
There is nothing about what you might restrict the term "mainframe" to
that was uniquely different from those VAX computers with respect to the
question of parallel processing, nor are those VAX computers the only
"mainframe" computers I have experience with.

What is it with you guys, that you have to negate everything you see? Is
it really that frustrating to not be able to contradict the technical
aspects of the discussion, that you have to look for whatever little nit
you can pick? Even if it means inferring all sorts of things that were
never written or intended?

And the MPP were a supercomputer not a mainframe.

So what? I never even described the MPP as a "mainframe".

Besides, compared to the vector processing supercomputers we also had at
the facility (Cray, Cyber, etc.), the MPP wasn't really even all that
"super". The point is that it was designed _entirely_ for parallel
algorithms, and I did have experience programming it.

Cor made the ridiculous assumption that the problem here was my
inexperience with respect to "mainframe" terminology, and I was simply
pointing out the absurdity of his assumption. How you define the term
"mainframe" is in fact irrelevant...his assumption is asburd regardless,
and the communication problem isn't due to some terminology difference
anyway.

Pete

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 12:51:43 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>Those VAX'es were minicomputers not mainframes.

Ahh...some more pedantry. It's like you can't live without it or
something.

Just because you have not gotten some terminology right, then there
are no need that new generations should get the same misunderstandings.

There was nothing "mini" about the VAX computers at that facility

Non the less VAX'es are mini computers. If they were big (6000 and
8000 series) you could call them superminis.

and by
the 80's, pretty much anything that didn't didn't fit on a desktop was
often referred to as a "mainframe", at least among the people I was
with.

There are also people which call the system unit for "hard disk".

That does not make it correct.

What is it with you guys, that you have to negate everything you see?
Is it really that frustrating to not be able to contradict the technical
aspects of the discussion, that you have to look for whatever little nit
you can pick? Even if it means inferring all sorts of things that were
never written or intended?

Actually minicomputer and mainframe are technical terms.

Your focus on the english language on the other hand ...

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:33:54 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

Actually minicomputer and mainframe are technical terms.

Bull. They were/are marketing terms. The primary thing that
distinguishes a "mainframe" from a "minicomputer" is their relative
physical size, which is hardly a "technical" attribute.

Your focus on the english language on the other hand ...

My "focus on the english language" pertains only to the fact that I have
no way of understanding what a particular post was meant to say. I am
not, unlike certain people around here, trying to make a disagreement just
for the sake of disagreement. I am trying to help the person understand
that whatever point he is trying to make has simply gone uncommunicated,
due to the grammatical problems with the post.

Pete

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Jul 5, 6:37 am, "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

Alex,

By the way, I think that you are more talking about what started as
multiprogramming. Something I did already long ago on mainframes. I did it
with datacomm work too, but to show what I mean, I write bellow the most
simple batch process as sample.

You read a tape and put that in a queue.
In the same time you process the queue.
In the same time you print the results from the queue.

The first will end very much before the second and mostly the third takes
the most time, however it shorten the throughput only a little bit. (Because
of that the sum of the processes was mostly not much longer than the
printing time).

That is just easy. But that is for me no parallel processing. In a parallel
process they end all at almost the same time.

So unless the processes all end at almost the same time there is no
parallel processing? That sounds like a silly definition to me.

There is only parallelism while more than one thing is happening at
once, of course - while, for instance, the tape is being read *and*
the queue is being processed at the same time. Even if that only
happens for part of the time, during that phase it's parallel
processing.

Jon

[=?Utf-8?B?cm9nZXJfMjc=?=]

......so yeah thanks for the input guys. lol

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:33:54 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

Actually minicomputer and mainframe are technical terms.

Bull. They were/are marketing terms. The primary thing that
distinguishes a "mainframe" from a "minicomputer" is their relative
physical size, which is hardly a "technical" attribute.

Your focus on the english language on the other hand ...

My "focus on the english language" pertains only to the fact that I have
no way of understanding what a particular post was meant to say. I am
not, unlike certain people around here, trying to make a disagreement just
for the sake of disagreement. I am trying to help the person understand
that whatever point he is trying to make has simply gone uncommunicated,
due to the grammatical problems with the post.

Pete