Is there any great benefit to compiling your lisp files to .fas besides security?

[Jim Thompson]

Is there any great benefit to compiling your lisp files to .fas besides security?

Does it really speed things up that much? I'm considering updating all our .lsp routines to .fas, but I'm not sure it will be worth the time to rework all the code to call the .lsp routines that we have in place.

Any input?

Also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of loading from the .mnl rather than acaddoc.lsp and vice-versa?

Thanks to all that reply.

[rkmcswain]

Is there any great benefit to compiling your lisp files to .fas besides security?

I believe you may notice a slight speed increase, but only with a large, complex routine.

I'm considering updating all our .lsp routines to .fas, but I'm not sure it will be worth the time to rework all the code to call the .lsp routines that we have in place.
Any input?

I wouldn't spend the time just for the sake of speeding up lisp execution.

Also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of loading from the .mnl rather than acaddoc.lsp and vice-versa?

None, except that a given MNL file only loads when it's associated menu is loaded. Useful for menu-specific routines. The MNL loads after "acaddoc.lsp" so you could "redefine" items by including them in the MNL.

See also: http://usa.autodesk.com/getdoc/id=TS28079

[Mike.Perry]

Hi Jim

Please note I have *moved* this thread from the AutoCAD Customization forum to this one, as I believe it will be better served here.

Thanks, Mike

Forum Manager