python-fu vs script-fu
This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.
This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 22 Mar 11:27 |
python-fu vs script-fu | Ofnuts | 22 Mar 16:34 |
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 22 Mar 19:04 |
python-fu vs script-fu | Kevin Payne | 22 Mar 19:51 |
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 23 Mar 10:18 |
python-fu vs script-fu | Kevin Cozens | 22 Mar 20:34 |
python-fu vs script-fu | Ofnuts | 22 Mar 21:04 |
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 23 Mar 10:22 |
python-fu vs script-fu | Kevin Payne | 23 Mar 11:36 |
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 23 Mar 12:50 |
python-fu vs script-fu | ugajin@talktalk.net | 23 Mar 10:19 |
python-fu vs script-fu
Is there a known performance issue for python-fu compared with script- fu?
I have a pair of comparable scripts, and I find python-fu to be noticeably lagged.
I am running 2.8.16 on OSX.
-u
python-fu vs script-fu
On 22/03/16 12:27, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
Is there a known performance issue for python-fu compared with script- fu?
I have a pair of comparable scripts, and I find python-fu to be noticeably lagged.
I am running 2.8.16 on OSX.
-u
A script is normally just glue around operations carried out by Gimp, so the efficiency of the script language is normally fairly irrelevant.
But different scripts could be using different operations for equivalent results, one set of operations being more efficient...
python-fu vs script-fu
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable lag when executing python-fu.
E.g., when I run Akkana Peck's show_py_ui.py plugin, and compare this with GIMP.org's test-sphere.scm script there is a big difference in performance up to launcing the UI. I note show_py_ui.py is a smaller file size, 3kb compared to test-sphere.scm's 6kb (12kb inc comments).
Is it just me on pre-build OSX?
Thanks.
-u
----Original Message----
From: ofnuts@gmx.com
Date: 22/03/2016 16:34
To:
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuOn 22/03/16 12:27, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
Is there a known performance issue for python-fu compared with
script-
fu?
I have a pair of comparable scripts, and I find python-fu to be noticeably lagged.
I am running 2.8.16 on OSX.
-u
A script is normally just glue around operations carried out by Gimp,
so
the efficiency of the script language is normally fairly irrelevant.
But different scripts could be using different operations for
equivalent
results, one set of operations being more efficient... _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
python-fu vs script-fu
As you haven't provided a link to Akkana's script, we have no way to compare if the scripts are even remotely similar.
My experience with writing a script in Scheme, then converting it to Python was that it runs considerably faster in Python, so I think it's as Ofnuts says, it's entirely dependent on what you are trying to do.
Kevin
From: gimp-user-list on behalf of ugajin@talktalk.net Sent: 22 March 2016 19:04 To: ofnuts@gmx.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fu I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable lag when executing python-fu. E.g., when I run Akkana Peck's show_py_ui.py plugin, and compare this with GIMP.org's test-sphere.scm script there is a big difference in performance up to launcing the UI. I note show_py_ui.py is a smaller file size, 3kb compared to test-sphere.scm's 6kb (12kb inc comments). Is it just me on pre-build OSX? Thanks. -u >----Original Message---- >From: ofnuts@gmx.com >Date: 22/03/2016 16:34 >To: >Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fu > >On 22/03/16 12:27, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote: >> Is there a known performance issue for python-fu compared with script- >> fu? >> >> I have a pair of comparable scripts, and I find python-fu to be >> noticeably lagged. >> >> I am running 2.8.16 on OSX. >> >> -u >> > >A script is normally just glue around operations carried out by Gimp, so >the efficiency of the script language is normally fairly irrelevant. > >But different scripts could be using different operations for equivalent >results, one set of operations being more efficient... >_______________________________________________ >gimp-user-list mailing list >List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org >List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list >List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list >
python-fu vs script-fu
On 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable lag when executing python-fu.
Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python scripts the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the script. The times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be the lag you are talking about.
Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're | powerful!" #include | --Chris Hardwick
python-fu vs script-fu
On 22/03/16 21:34, Kevin Cozens wrote:
On 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable lag when executing python-fu.
Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python scripts the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the script. The times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be the lag you are talking about.
Possible. I don't experience such lags but then on a Linux system there is always a Python script running somewhere so the interpreter is already loaded, and it's only a matter of initializing a new instance. But then on OSX I would expect the interpreter to be kept in the IO buffers, so the lag would be noticeable only on the first execution. A good test would be to start an interactive python session before starting Gimp, keep it open while Gimp runs and see if the lag remains.
python-fu vs script-fu
Here is the link: http://gimpbook.com/scripting/gimp-script-templates/pyui.py
----Original Message----
From: paynekj@hotmail.com
Date: 22/03/2016 19:51
To: "gimp-user-list@gnome.org"
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuAs you haven't provided a link to Akkana's script, we have no way to
compare if the scripts are even remotely similar.
My experience with writing a script in Scheme, then converting it to
Python was that it runs considerably faster in Python, so I think it's as Ofnuts says, it's entirely dependent on what you are trying to do.
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gimp-user-list on behalf of
Sent: 22 March 2016 19:04
To: ofnuts@gmx.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuI don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable lag when executing python-fu.
E.g., when I run Akkana Peck's show_py_ui.py plugin, and compare this with GIMP.org's test-sphere.scm script there is a big difference in performance up to launcing the UI. I note show_py_ui.py is a smaller file size, 3kb compared to test-sphere.scm's 6kb (12kb inc comments).
Is it just me on pre-build OSX?
Thanks.
-u
----Original Message----
From: ofnuts@gmx.com
Date: 22/03/2016 16:34
To:
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuOn 22/03/16 12:27, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
Is there a known performance issue for python-fu compared with
script-
fu?
I have a pair of comparable scripts, and I find python-fu to be noticeably lagged.
I am running 2.8.16 on OSX.
-u
A script is normally just glue around operations carried out by Gimp,
so
the efficiency of the script language is normally fairly irrelevant.
But different scripts could be using different operations for
equivalent
results, one set of operations being more efficient... _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
python-fu vs script-fu
I take the point.
Thanks.
----Original Message----
From: kevin@ve3syb.ca
Date: 22/03/2016 20:34
To:
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuOn 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is
noticeable
lag when executing python-fu.
Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python
scripts
the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the script.
The
times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be the lag you
are
talking about.
--
Cheers!Kevin.
http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"Nerds make the shiny things that
distract
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 | the mouth-breathers, and that's why
we're
| powerful!"
#include | --Chris Hardwick _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
python-fu vs script-fu
Intersting idea, but running Python interactively before launching GIMP does not seem to make a noticeable difference.
Thanks.
----Original Message----
From: ofnuts@gmx.com
Date: 22/03/2016 21:04
To:
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuOn 22/03/16 21:34, Kevin Cozens wrote:
On 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is
noticeable
lag when executing python-fu.
Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python scripts the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the script. The times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be the lag you are talking about.
Possible. I don't experience such lags but then on a Linux system
there
is always a Python script running somewhere so the interpreter is already loaded, and it's only a matter of initializing a new
instance.
But then on OSX I would expect the interpreter to be kept in the IO buffers, so the lag would be noticeable only on the first execution.
A
good test would be to start an interactive python session before starting Gimp, keep it open while Gimp runs and see if the lag
remains.
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
python-fu vs script-fu
How much extra time are you seeing with the Python dialog?
Here on a Windows 7 machine, I can't be sure I'm seeing any difference, so it must be less than 0.5 seconds.
Kevin
From: gimp-user-list on behalf of ugajin@talktalk.net Sent: 23 March 2016 10:22 To: ofnuts@gmx.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fu Intersting idea, but running Python interactively before launching GIMP does not seem to make a noticeable difference. Thanks. >----Original Message---- >From: ofnuts@gmx.com >Date: 22/03/2016 21:04 >To: >Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fu > >On 22/03/16 21:34, Kevin Cozens wrote: >> On 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote: >>> I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is noticeable >>> lag when executing python-fu. >> >> Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python >> scripts the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the >> script. The times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be >> the lag you are talking about. >> > >Possible. I don't experience such lags but then on a Linux system there >is always a Python script running somewhere so the interpreter is >already loaded, and it's only a matter of initializing a new instance. >But then on OSX I would expect the interpreter to be kept in the IO >buffers, so the lag would be noticeable only on the first execution. A >good test would be to start an interactive python session before >starting Gimp, keep it open while Gimp runs and see if the lag remains. >_______________________________________________ >gimp-user-list mailing list >List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org >List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list >List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list >
python-fu vs script-fu
It is difficult to estimate. Interstingly perhaps, (as noted by Ofnuts) it can be significantly more, perhaps 2, or even 3 times longer on a first run.
Thanks.
-u
----Original Message----
From: paynekj@hotmail.com
Date: 23/03/2016 11:36
To: "gimp-user-list@gnome.org"
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuHow much extra time are you seeing with the Python dialog?
Here on a Windows 7 machine, I can't be sure I'm seeing any
difference, so it must be less than 0.5 seconds.
Kevin
________________________________________ From: gimp-user-list on behalf of
Sent: 23 March 2016 10:22
To: ofnuts@gmx.com; gimp-user-list@gnome.org Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuIntersting idea, but running Python interactively before launching
GIMP
does not seem to make a noticeable difference.
Thanks.
----Original Message----
From: ofnuts@gmx.com
Date: 22/03/2016 21:04
To:
Subj: Re: [Gimp-user] python-fu vs script-fuOn 22/03/16 21:34, Kevin Cozens wrote:
On 16-03-22 03:04 PM, ugajin@talktalk.net wrote:
I don't see the difference to be about efficiency. There is
noticeable
lag when executing python-fu.
Script-Fu is always loaded in memory when GIMP starts. For Python scripts the Python interpreter must be loaded before it can run the script. The times it takes to load the Python interepreter would be the lag you are talking about.
Possible. I don't experience such lags but then on a Linux system
there
is always a Python script running somewhere so the interpreter is already loaded, and it's only a matter of initializing a new
instance.
But then on OSX I would expect the interpreter to be kept in the IO buffers, so the lag would be noticeable only on the first execution.
A
good test would be to start an interactive python session before starting Gimp, keep it open while Gimp runs and see if the lag
remains.
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list