Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Write Your Desktop Application in a VM for Your Security!

Today when I arrive to my computer at work I receive the Windows Updates. 1 GB... 1 GB! Most of them are of course security patches which go over Windows, Office and things like it. If you look deeper, you can see that is not only in regular code but it is all over the place. This happens also for Windows 10 like ZDNet confirms.

The updates are in .Net framework, graphics drivers, mounting devices (and Office as told previously) and so on.

These components are as we can guess mostly in C or C++, in part because it is harder to look to all buffer overflows in all Windows codebase, but it is also in part because lower level languages require a hard(er) time for developer brain so it makes harder without very deep code review to get these things fully right.

I hope that most readers could understand this and I would also expect that most of readers are also writing code in .Net (and Java and JavaScript) but I want to express only one idea which in most of the time the security as being hard in itself, adding the concerns of low level bounds checking, makes the security to be very hard to achieve. So it is more economical (and logical) to externalize those risks for other companies (like the OS vendor, the VM creator(s) and so on).

But the latest reason why I do think that is also important to use a VM is the simple fact that is visibly easier to patch your code. If it is JavaScript or Flash, you do upload new application on site, and you're already patched. Users have to refresh the browser.

If you run your code in Java or .Net, if is a very low level security vulnerability, you ask users to upgrade, if it is in your application, you have functionality more or less built in. It is very easy to download files using either Java or .Net and to extract them if it is used a zip format.

But if you use C++ you have to compile the application, have the updater a bit awkward written (as there are some Windows APIs supposedly to do some C++ code), you have to make sure that it supports the right machine (like x86 or x64) and "you're good to go".

With the world of AppStores there is an argument that C++ can be deployed as easily, but in part I still don't think so for one reason or two: if you deploy your Android Java code, you don't bother with which CPU has the tablet, for example a MIPS32 or MIPS64 one. For iOS you have to support basically two platforms because Apple environment is tight, and for Windows by far the easiest way to work is still with C#. Also, an argument that the iOS environment it is itself like a virtual machine now,

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Premature Optimization Is (Almost) Mandatory

"Premature optimization is the root of all evil" was told by Donald Knuth, right? Right, but he was misquoted. He said in full: that for 97% the premature optimization is not necessary. You can access the full paper where the quote is taken from here. Even more, he said so in context of using ugly constructs (he was refering on GOTO statements). And more, he did point out that statistically the hottest of the code is in 3% of the code, and the full statement of him was: "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.". So, he doesn't say about stop to optimize (don't forget, that "premature" is a loaded word, having already a negative connotation) but the reverse, to optimize the code that is hot.

Based on this, I found many misconceptions regarding optimizations and at least this is my view on it (from the most important to the weakest ones):

1 - "You should not optimize in your game/application the loading time, this happen just once, after this application runs fast/properly". There is some truth to this statement, for example if you watch a movie, you should not care if the movie player starts in 0.1 seconds or 2 seconds. But what if the movie player starts in 30 seconds? Would you want to watch using this movie player to watch a 2 minutes clip? Many developers have quite powerful machines, like they have SSDs, 4 cores with at least 8 GB of RAM, but their application will arrive to users that do not have these cool components and the application will run visibily slower

2 - "The redesigning of our architecture will bring the application performance by 4x, and optimizing the current design will give to us only 2x speedup, so there is no need of small optimizations" - but very often this 2x speedup would mostly be transferred in many places to the new redesign, and the architecture redesigns are very expensive (as developer time) to do them. Let's say the company switches from any SQL kind of servers to NoSQL but the application logic is the same. Let's assume that in that scenario jumping from let's say MySQL to MongoDB will give a 4x speedup for queries, and let's say the queries were using 2/3 of the time of the entire system. The final speedup will be exactly 2x. But let's say that the company optimized only the part which is not related with SQL and the speedup is 2x and for the entire system the speedup is 33%. Even it is slow, customers will have a tangible benefit next week/month not after some months when maybe they quit already as potential clients. Even more, when the migration from MySQL to Mongo happens, the system will work 3x faster. But as real life happens, sometimes can be a pathological case that for a customer Mongo runs in fact 20% slower when migrated, but because the optimizations are done on the system level, the system would run still more than 10% faster. There is a lot of math here. done on the back of the envelope, but it simply states that it never hurts to have small optimizations done.

3 - "When I develop I don't need optimized workflow, my machine is really fast": this is kinda true, but sometimes is not that true. Many big applications take long time to start which is again kind of normal, for example it needs to get updates from server, and you as a developer you can pay (because you have SSD and 8 GB of RAM) at least when you are developing to wait for 10 seconds to get the real case data. But if you have to reproduce a bug, imagine that every second counts. It counts because it annoys development, it interrupts it. Especially if your build system takes minutes you will notice that you go to a blog and you read the news and rants (like this blog) but you lose the focus of which bug you were really working on. This is not a fault necessarily on your organization, but this is how human mind works. This is kind of the first point ("you should not optimize loading time") but is directed to developers. You as a developer have to make 1 step build if possible and focus to not do crazily much stuff.

4 - "You don't need to optimize your code because compiler knows better" - I am sure that micro-optimizations like using minimal numbers of variables a compiler will do always a better job than you, but this is blatantly false. Compiler can optimize your code but most code is not run within the compiled code, especially in managed languages (C# or .Net ones, Java, JavaScript) you will see that the compiler runs a lot of code with libraries. Most compilers cannot optimize string concatenation, even though Java will use StringBuilder when you use + to concatenate strings. And the reason it does it in this way it is because compilers don't work well with strings. Every time your code does read from files, a compiler will not know a lot about your file format, duplicates of data, or the fact that you could read less data and rebuild the information. No compiler cannot know if you load 2 times the same image, that it should load it once and cache it, and so on. Even worse, is that even we allow to think that your environment is well optimized, it means that only your code remains the slow part.

5 - "I should not speedup my web service, I will put it on Azure (replace this word with your Cloud solution)" Not sure about you, but having a faster web service means that you have a simpler administration as you need to spawn fewer instances, smaller costs, even the improvements of code could be a bigger upfront cost.

6 - "You don't need to optimize allocation, GC does it fast(er)" Did you measure this? GC definetly has quicker allocator than let's say C++ one, but every time when you do a "new" for a heap object, the object has to zeroed, it also moves the allocation pointer and it means that it makes the CPU cache line "dirty". If you have some code that reads from a file line by line and you have your own "read line method" (I'm saying especially if you want to improve the load time performance, see point 1), you may make a reactive interface, and instead of allocating a new buffer, it looks to me a fair design to just recycle the buffer. The speedups on .Net side are fairly significant, and I would expect the same on Java. Allocating more seldom these small objects will make the GC to be called less frequently.

A bit wider problem of architecture redesign. Today in most companies I work they do use Agile methodology, which is in itself an incremental methodology. This makes almost impossible to make in big systems architecture refactors and even they do them, they are done by the most senior team members, which they know "the core" well. This means that it is possible that an architecture refactor can take not months, but years sometimes, because you cannot risk to break existing iterations, so the code is prepared with small small steps to accomplish this redesign. 

In conclusion, this post is not specially to use GOTOs, which both me and Knuth would disagree, but the idea is that every time when you can isolate (in a profiler) some slow code, optimize it now, not tomorrow. The later you do it, you will suffer it in testing it, having a bad application experience (and users will feel it also very often!).

Monday, August 3, 2015

Visual Studio 2015/C# 6/.Net 4.6 (RyuJIT) review

This maybe it is in context of Windows 10 launch when the impression was a bit of a buggy release (and with the fact that some families of video cards are not even supported, like NVidia 4xx cards or older) Visual Studio got a much less attention.

I think this is right for most users, but on the other hand I do feel that this release is extraordinarily... strange. It is outstanding with some features like including of profiling tools even in Community Edition (the profiling tools are limited but still much better ones than the previous not- included ones).

The first impression I had was many fold positive:
- C# 6 which looks to me like a streamline version of itself which was forgot basically from the times of .Net 3.5/VS 2008 (that come with Linq and var keyword). Making code to be less repetitive is an amazing stuff. If you have time to listen for more than one hour, this presentation is excellent. Please push in your company to use C# 6, that excluding if you use string interpolation, doesn't require any .Net support. I'm not a VB.Net guy and I cannot comment much, but I expect to be good stuff here also.
- Roslyn idea even it was as a part of NRefactory for years, it is really well implemented at least that as you type you can see very reliably if your code has errors. No full build to see if are failures. This is really a huge timesaver in itself. This "language service" which is exposed as an open API will make that C# will not have strange behaviors in completion, especially if you will use future versions of CodeRush or JustCode. I love Resharper, but it is still great to know that Roslyn will be part of future SharpDevelop and MonoDevelop release
- .Net 4.6 comes with awesome improvements, I would expect in future to see releases like Paint.Net or photo image manipulation programs or some entry level video games to support SIMD libraries. They come for free, but there is a caveat for now. It still has some obscure bugs (which to be fair, are to be expected) especially if you run F#. The reason why only F# appears to be affected is in part natural, it is because F# requires to allow "tail call optimization" which in turn changes recursive calls into loops. Without it many F# programs can either run with "stack overflow" or have very ugly performance profile. So don't rush for now to run it into your production server, or do it only for your VB.Net/C# code
- even I'm not a C++ developer, it looks that Visual Studio supports very well C++ standards, which again is a great achievement, so you can target with one C++ codebase basically all platforms (like iOS, Android and Windows) without strange #define

As a .Net developer I am still disappointed with .Net which looks today excluding for web stacks (and even there the solution was mostly made as a response of NodeJS/small web servers from Ruby or Java world) so it looks as a desktop tool incoherent. I honestly don't know a Microsoft stack that I can support more than one platform, even in Microsoft's ecosystem. WPF is decent, they patch it, but it looks to me is like an MFC which runs on top of DirectX9. Not DirectX12.

Even more strange is when you install Visual Studio it comes with no package to develop with .Net on other platforms (like Mono) so up to the point that NRefactory is stable enough, your C#6 code you run will run only on Windows or on Linux as an CoreCLR .Net distribution, but not on Mono. This is kind of a bummer if you ask me.

Even more, and this is in fact not a rant against WPF, but as they improved VB and C# (and C++ for that matter, and F#) why they didn't improve Xaml. Xaml is an horrible language, if you can name it so. It has various framework conventions which are almost always broken. You add on this that WPF platform without (and even with) custom controls runs slow with more than some thousands of items. The reason is not that is not GPU accelerated or are GPU drivers faults, or that DirecX9 drivers are not to the snuff, but because when you profile WPF applicaiton, you will see that the internal layouting is hogging the CPU.

If you add other and other issues, it looks to me that if you want to written an application that is for example cross platform, you have mostly Xamarin solutions (MonoGame, Xwt, Gtk#, Xamarin.Forms, and so on) which is at least for me a bit strange.

What I would hope that the VS+1 will support in no particular order:
- polish the software more: it looks to me that Microsoft has right now quality issues all over the products. Complex software is hard, but working little by little and releasing with two features less will make the environment more nice. Not sure about other uses, but at least under Windows 10 but with latest updates, I had fairly many freezes and crashes. I definitely had much fewer under latest releases, but from time to time I still have "blue screen ;) " in Windows or VS hanging sometimes. Especially under debugging situations
- give a clear vision about which frameworks are supported by Microsoft. I'm talking here WPF in particular, but I think that many other frameworks (which include WCF, Silverlight, even the original WinRT code) are either not well exposed or not clear when or how they are supported. This makes very hard for some developers (like myself) if I would have an idea of a startup to start with Windows for a two years project. Java even it is worse technically (in many ways it is worse), I know that they don't let freeze some features, and most of them are in the open. Visual Studio comes with tools from editing Html, to C++ coding for Android. It looks to me like a dinosaur, but maybe is my limited judgement
- should not try to put under one IDE all languages/platforms. And the reason why is that VS is not an open platform like Eclipse. People will not extend it to make CAD modelling out of it. Even it lets you unselect them, by default are to many things included. Features do not matter only by count, but by making a sane experience for users. Use NuGet for adding language services.
- this maybe is easier to say than to do: start with TypeScript and make a .Net language that resemble it. Make a very light language similar with Swift to work for both "Desktop" and "Web" world. C# is really better in my view than Java (which was competing with) but to be fair JetBrains' Kotlin language is definitely more usable. Ruby (excluding that Ruby is not strongly typed) is again more usable than C#. But the "static version" of Mozilla Rust looks really promising and is clearly high performance. Maybe the starting point should be Visual Basic.Net but remove the legacy and make similarly a C# without the legacy. To be forced for example to not iterate without IEnumerable, and you will have to create a separate code (similar with what C# developers write with "unsafe" code) for people who still want C#.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Using .Net for Developing Games, a 2015 review

Before talking about game development, as a disclaimer I'm not a game developer even though I do have some (working) experience with older versions of OpenGL and DirectX and hands on experience with C++ and C#. Also, I kept track of current technologies (as much as time allows).

First of all, let's clarify the terms: there are obviously games which can write and run in C#, I'm thinking here like most board games like Chess, Go, even strategy games, or similar. Even more, you can do more than these games, and I'm saying the best of my knowledge game written in C# which is Magicka, but again people will sneeze and will say: but this game doesn't use Havok (the physics engine) or if a C# game would use it, people will say: but the Havok is not written in C#, but is it written in C++.

Given this, I want to make as fair as possible review of .Net platform as a game development tool.

Here are some really great pluses
+ C#'s peak performance (after the application starts up), especially if you avoid as plague to work with strings, but using mostly arrays and integers/double types, will make your code to run adequate (typically around 70-90% of C++ code, even better match up if you use 64 bit .Net)
+ C# allows for the hottest of the code to be written in C++ and also allows to let you use no bounds checking using "unsafe" code. This makes that if you need a specific code to be autovectorized and you notice that C++ compiler does it but the C# one does not (and you don't want to use Mono.SIMD code to write your own matrix multiply code) to be very highly optimized
+ the call speed from PInvoke is adequate as .Net "natively" maps COM calls and C calls, meaning that if you use either DirectX or OpenGL, you are covered
+ having complex game logic can be more easily written in C# than in C++, especially as some C++ game engines use Lua as a backend. Writing it into C# should give some times speedups
+ you can use struct types so you can reduce the times the memory collection is happening

Here are really bad minuses:
- coding recklessly will create a lot of garbage in memory making pressure on GC. It can take sometimes seconds (for huge heaps, like multi GB heaps) which is unacceptable even in a board game
- allocation by default is on heap, meaning that if you create a List<T>, in fact always it will create on heap 2 objects, the first is the List<T> itself, and the internal array which stores the actual data. This is really bad because when you add to List<T> items, the internal array is "resized' which in the .Net (or Mono or CodeRefractor) implementations mean that a new array is allocated, meaning that a lot of more GC pressure happens. In C++ by default objects are allocated on stack with no hidden costs. If you use std::vector<T>, the internal array is on heap, but the vector itself is on stack.
- Linq can create without noticing a lot of objects: especially when you use: ".ToArray()", or ".ToList" or for a statement that wants to return a pair of values.
This code:
var playerAndLifes = players.Select(player => new Tuple<Player, int>(player, player.Life)).ToArray();
Looks really innocent, but in fact "Tuple" is a class, so is allocated on heap, and also ToArray will resize in power of two for the length of your "players" object. So for an 1300 players will be around 8 reallocations, and for 2600 players will be 9 reallocations and so on.
For the previous code, make a struct STuple in your codebase and use it. Also, if you know the size of players, do not forget to read ways to improve your Linq performance article.
- Objects in .Net are huge, so if you keep a single byte or integer index (even it has its own more complex associated logic) consider using struct or enum types. The reason why objects in .Net are huge, is that they contain much more information in the object header, including typeId, some space to be able to lock on them, If you have a class which stores 1 integer, on 32 bits .Net is 12 bytes, but on 64 bit machine is 24 bytes. So for every single allocation of an object, you will waste an extra 8 or 20 bytes. In C++ if you don't use virtual calls, the overhead is zero for object internals, but can be bigger if the memory allocator is not efficient. For virtual method classes, the overhead is typically the size of the pointer (4 bytes on 32 bit machines and 8 bytes for a 64 bit machines).
- Texts are UTF16, which very often is a good thing, but when you want high(er) performance, if you write them on disk, they occupy 2 times more space. Even worse, they do increase memory usage and again will create presure on GC. Try to work with UTF8 encoded strings internally and do interning (meaning to merge strings all over your application) so at least when GC happens will have less work to do
- Even is not necessarily an issue of .Net in itself, an easy way to support Save/Load inside games is to use a serializer that stores or restores your entities on disk. Using the default "DataContract" or even BinarySerializer are slow. Use protobuf-net (ProtoBuffers) as it is a very easy to use library to do this part and it can run many times faster. Similarly, try to not use any xml/json or alike for levels where is it expected to have many enties of any kind
- the JIT (Just in time) compiler sometimes make things ugly! The JIT time is typcally very small, but it is happening every time a new method in code is hit. If you have big methods and/or a bigger logic, you may expect to see "frame-skips", especially as per frame there is the "tyranny" of 16.6 ms per frame. Making methods small and try to remove duplicate code should make that when you get a new item or you see a new enemy which has a new game logic which is exposed to the player, which would require for .Net to analyse it, should be faster to optimize. But the even better way is simply to NGen your application.

What is weird as for me, is that the biggest factor into responsive games is not itself the compilation's performance (which .Net has it right from year 2009 I would say, with .Net 3.5 SP1), but the hidden overhead(s) of GC. You can get screwed many times and the ugly part of GC is that you don't know when it will hit you, even worse, you may not know which code creates classes (like System.Tuple or Linq's ToArray/ToList).

To wrap up, it looks to me that GC is the biggest factor for user to see freezes and as .Net improved as output of generated code (with initiatives like RyuJIT or CoreCLR) the elephant remains mostly to work with structs and to use an efficient serializer. This code can be very often improved by other means, typically by forcing a full GC at steps user waits already. After a game loads a full level into memory, a developer can force a full GC, after a round is finished and is written "Victory", another full GC can be forced. This style of coding is fine, but of course, if the game was expected to have a full round ended in 10 minutes but finished in 40 minutes, and the user has let's say a full GC of 3 seconds in the middle of the minute 35, this will ruin the experience.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Resharper 9 - a blast


Disclaimer: I've received an opensource license from JetBrains of Resharper for the second time. Thank you JetBrains!

I've been fairly critical sometimes with R# (Resharper) as is somewhat not accessible for some users, in the same time I've been using it. But I want to say why also code analysis in general and coding in particular is crucial with using today with a Resharper like tool.

So first of all, I want to make some criticism of Resharper and especially R# 9 as I've received:
- I've had a not updated R# 8 (it expired somewhere around October) and upgrading to 9.0 (which happen to be out of date because I didn't use R# for some time) made R# to report a lot of errors in code which were not there. Clearing the caches did fix all the known errors I had. But it was really strange (Google pointed me directly to the right place)
- Resharper doesn't default to use Solution Wide analysis. Maybe for low end machines is to be desired, or for very big projects, but as it is, at least for medium projects is a boon. I am sure that for big solutions (I'm thinking here programs like SharpDevelop or bigger) maybe Resharper runs slow to update the analysis (which in itself is a fair point) but the missing of the information that R# provides (like compilation errors you may have) by default, I found it as a big miss

Ok, so small bugs and not so great defaults. But in context of CodeRefractor's project it was so great feature because it made possible to make possible to big rewrites and right now it undergones the third rewrite. Every rewrite was justifiable for various reasons:
- the first and (as for me) very important one was that the internal representation was shaped very close to SSA form (or at least to LinearIL from Mono project). A subsequent almost as a full rewrite made the project to use an index of these instructions so optimizations will not do their job well, but they do it fast
- the second rewrite allowed a much refined way to find all methods (like virtual methods) so many more programs do run now (try it, it will do wonders)
- the third rewrite (that is currently going) that I will not write the details now

What I found great working features:
- creating property is automatic and fast with good defaults:
myValue.Width = 30;
//R# will suggest to create Width as an automatic property of int type
- creating automatic empty class taking into account of constrains:
BaseClass a = new MyNotDefinedClass();
//R# will suggest to create MyNotDefinedClass as BaseClass and will also implement some required data
- the Solution Wide analysis which takes into account when your code compiles. This feature is so awesome because you can combine it with two features: "Code cleanup" (which removes for example a lot of redundancies and reformats nicely the whole code) and "Find Code Issues".
- a R# 9.0 feature: code completion filters with various criteria (like: "properties only" or "extension methods only").
- unused parameters and the refactor to remove them globally is really a huge time saver of developer time

So in short, I have to say that if you start with Resharper from scratch, or you do want to use productively C#, I warmly recommend it to you. Also, don't forget the first thing after you open your solution to enable by default the Solution wide analysis (you have a "gray circle" on bottom-right: double click on it and click "OK" to the dialog it appears").

Also, please note that I tried to be as unbiased as I can, so I didn't point things that I'm sure that are invaluable for other projects like MVC3 or Xaml features (CR usage of Xaml is very limited), so here is only what I used (and enjoyed!) but some features may be for you closer to heart .

Improve performance for your selects in Linq

A think I learned inside CodeRefractor is how loops do work inside .Net. One thing I learned fairly quick is that the fastest loop is by far on arrays. It is documented also by Microsoft.

In short, especially using .Net on 64 bit, you will see high performance code over arrays so I strongly recommend if you have data that you read it often out of it (for example for using Linq), you should use ToArray() function.

So let's say you need out of your "tradeData" variable your names out of it.
The code may look like this:
return tradeData.Select(it => it.Id).ToArray();
What's wrong with this code? Let's say "tradeData" variable can have 1.000.000 items and tradeData can be itself an array or a List<T> and when you profile, you can see that iteration takes little time, but most of the time you will see like 16-18 allocations inside of ToArray(), the reason being that ToArray itself keeps an internal array which is resized for more times.


So it should be possible to write a "SelectToArray" method that will have much lower overhead:
     public static class UtilsLinq
    {
        public static TResult[] SelectToArray<TValue, TResult>(this IList<TValue> items, Func<TValue, TResult> func)
        {
            var count = items.Count;
            var result = new TResult[count];
            for (var i = 0; i < result.Length; i++)
            {
                result[i] = func(items[i]);
            }
            return result;
        }
    }

As T[] implements IList<T> makes this code to work for both arrays and List<T>. This code will run as fast as possible and there are no hidden allocations.

And you code becomes:
return tradeData.SelectToArray(it => it.Id);

Strong recommendation for fast(er) code: when you use Select or SelectToArray do NEVER allocate inside it "class" objects but struct objects. If you want to keep a result with multiple data fields, create "struct" types which incapsulate them.

How fast is it? It it fairly fast.

For this code:
            var sz = 10000000;
            var randData = new int[sz];
            var random = new Random();
            for(var i = 0; i<sz; i++)
            {
                randData[i] = random.Next(1, 10);
            }
            var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
            for(int t = 0; t<5;t++){
                var arr = randData.SelectToArray(i => (double)i);
            }
            var time1 = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds;
            sw.Stop();
            sw.Restart();
            for(int t = 0; t<5;t++){
                var arr = randData.Select(i => (double)i).ToArray();
            }
            var time2 = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds;
You have
 time1 = 798 ms vs time2 = 1357 (Debug configuration)
 time1 =  574 ms vs time2 = 1003 (Release configuration)

Not sure about you, but this is significant and also it is crucial of you have multiple Linq/Select statements and you want also the resulting items to be fast iterable. Similarly, you will have bigger speedup if you don't do the cast to double, but I wanted to show a more realistic code where the Linq it is doing something light (like typically happens as sometimes there is an indexer involved, or a field access).

NB. This test is artificial, and use these results at your own risk.
Later, I found there is a method: Array.ConvertAll which has very similar internals with this extension method (the limitation is that doesn't work with non-array implementations, but if this is not a big incovenience for you, is better to use the BCL classes).

     public static TResult[] SelectToArray<TValue, TResult>(this TValue[] items, Func<TValue, TResult> func)
        {
            return Array.ConvertAll(items, it => func(it));
        }

Method changed to this and is a bit even faster, because the iteration of items variable si a bit faster this time.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Calcium - a Mirah like language for .Net

Hi readers, not sure if anyone is following my GitHub page, but I did fix some of bugs with Calcium language. What is Calcium? Calcium is a Mirah like language (which itself is a Ruby like language) for .Net platform. If you write your code in Ruby using mostly IronRuby conventions (and as much as the minimal features are working), you should get at the end a C# file without any other overhead (excluding the .Net one). For now a simple program is supported, the Mandelbrot fractal generator but the more types/fixes are included. The slowest part of the fractal generator is in fact writing to console.

Want to have quick a C# program that writes to screen and is compiled with Ruby syntax? This mini-compiler could help you.

A code like this one does what you would expeect: writes 10 times "Hello from Calcium" then it counts the time in milliseconds that was required to do so:

def run
   print "Hello from Calcium"
end

start = Environment.TickCount
i = 0
while i < 10
  run
  i += 1
end

endTime = (Environment.TickCount - start) / 1000.0
print "Time: "
puts endTime

The generated C# is the following:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Cal.Runtime;
public class _Global {

static public void Main ()
{
Int32 start;
Int32 i;
Double endTime;
start = Environment . TickCount;
i = 0;
while(i<10)
{
run();
i += 1;
}
endTime = (Environment . TickCount-start)/1000.0;
Console.Write("Time: ");;
Console.WriteLine(endTime);;
}
static public void run ()
{
Console.Write("Hello from Calcium");;
}
}

As you can see it could be a time saver, and if it will be extended enough, it can replace in future some cases where you used IronRuby and you quit because it felt to slow. I plan to fix and extend this transpiler to make it functional enough to support very common cases.

If you are interested, please take a look and try to extend or report as minimal bug reports as possible.