The PLplot Plotting Library: Programmer's Reference Manual
Prev | Chapter 11. Using PLplot from Tcl | Next

# Understanding the Performance Characteristics of Tcl

Newcomers to Tcl, and detractors (read, "proponents of other paradigms") often do not have a clear (newcomers) or truthful (detractors) perspective on Tcl performance. In this section we try to convey a little orientation which may be helpful in working with the PLplot Tcl interface.

"Tcl is slow!" "Yeah, so what?"

Debates of this form frequently completely miss the point. Yes, Tcl is definitely slow. It is fundamentally a string processing language, is interpreted, and must perform substitutions and so forth on a continual basis. All of that takes time. Think milliseconds instead of microseconds for comparing Tcl code to equivalent C code. On the other hand, this does not have to be problematic, even for time critical (interactive) applications, if the division of labor is done correctly. Even in an interactive program, you can use Tcl fairly extensively for high level control type operations, as long as you do the real work in a compiled Tcl command procedure. If the high level control code is slow, so what? So it takes 100 milliseconds over the life the process, as compared to the 100 microseconds it could have taken if it were in C. Big deal. On an absolute time scale, measured in units meaningful to humans, it's just not a lot of time.

The problem comes when you try to do too much in Tcl. For instance, an interactive process should not be trying to evaluate a mathematical expression inside a doubly nested loop structure, if performance is going to be a concern.

Case in point: Compare x16.tcl to x16c.c. The code looks very similar, and the output looks very similar. What is not so similar is the execution time. The Tcl code, which sets up the data entirely in Tcl, takes a while to do so. On the other hand, the actual plotting of the data proceeds at a rate which is effectively indistinguishable from that of the compiled example. On human time scales, the difference is not meaningful. Conclusion: If the computation of the data arrays could be moved to compiled code, the two programs would have performance close enough to identical that it really wouldn't be an issue. We left the Tcl demos coded in Tcl for two reasons. First because they provide some examples and tests of the use of the Tcl Matrix extension, and secondly because they allow the Tcl demos to be coded entirely in Tcl, without requiring special customized extended shells for each one of them. They are not, however, a good example of you should do things in practice.

Now look at `tk04` and `xtk04.c`, you will see that if the data is computed in compiled code, and shuffled into the Tcl matrix and then plotted from Tcl, the performance is fine. Almost all the time is spent in plshade, in compiled code. The time taken to do the small amount of Tcl processing involved with plotting is dwarfed by the time spent doing the actual drawing in C. So using Tcl cost almost nothing in this case.

So, the point is, do your heavy numerics in a compiled language, and feel free to use Tcl for the plotting, if you want to. You can of course mix it up so that some plotting is done from Tcl and some from a compiled language.

Prev | Home | Next
Contouring and Shading from Tcl | Up | Building an Extended WISH