SA-MP Forums Archive
Which is faster? - Printable Version

+- SA-MP Forums Archive (https://sampforum.blast.hk)
+-- Forum: SA-MP Scripting and Plugins (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Scripting Help (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+---- Forum: Help Archive (https://sampforum.blast.hk/forumdisplay.php?fid=89)
+---- Thread: Which is faster? (/showthread.php?tid=270930)


Which is faster? - ||123|| - 22.07.2011

If I use a include, but copy it's content to the pawno, not "#include"ing the actual file, will that be faster than using a #include normally?

Re: Which is faster? - MadeMan - 22.07.2011

No, it's the same. #include will copy it anyway.

Re: Which is faster? - ||123|| - 22.07.2011

If that's the case, then copying it in pawno should be faster, as it will only take a single action for reading the include, shouldn't it?

Re: Which is faster? - Calgon - 22.07.2011

Compile time isn't what you should be worried about. A pawn compiler grabs all the code from includes and your main script and compiles it in to one AMX file.

Re: Which is faster? - ||123|| - 22.07.2011

So, does that mean that there will be a difference in the .amx file, if I remove a #include and compile it? What you mean is, #include also get saved in .amx?

Re: Which is faster? - FireCat - 22.07.2011

Quote:

Includes are not saved in the .amx file, they are COMPILED
Doesn't compiling mean creating the amx?
Or put it all together in the amx?

Re: Which is faster? - MoroDan - 22.07.2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireCat
Посмотреть сообщение
Doesn't compiling mean creating the amx?
Or put it all together in the amx?
Doesn't compiling mean NOT creating the amx.

Re: Which is faster? - Mean - 22.07.2011

Compiler is a computer program (or set of programs) that translates source code written in a computer language into another computer language (the target language).
Source: wikipedia.

Re: Which is faster? - ||123|| - 22.07.2011

Alright thanks.