#Crestron simpl plus code

extension.simplCC_Series3All: Finds all.Targeted at both the 2series and 3series processors. extension.simplCC_Series2and3: Compiles the currently opened file if it is a SIMPL+.extension.simplCC_Series3: Compiles the currently opened file if it is a SIMPL+.This extension contributes the following commands:

#Crestron simpl plus code

TODO: code file-type icons, maybe better intellisense + autocompletes. Note: To take advantage of the compiler operations, you must have the Crestron provided Simpl+ Compiler installed. There could also be test artifacts.VSCode Extension which adds syntax highlighting and provides commands in the command pallete for compiling. I don't know that the CPU utilization was near 100% (and my QMRMC doesn't implement the TOP command). Only being able to do rougly 1 128-loop iteration/second was quite a bit slower than I expected out of the processor. I was expecting many more logic iterations/second. Tricky SIMPL adds logic waves that seem to kill the throughput.ДЄs an aside, I was somewhat shocked at how slow the processor was. Having to think was annoying.Д¬onclusion: In this specific example, the brute force SIMPL technique is not faster than a few lines of SIMPL+. Implementing the Tricky SIMPL took me the longest and involved the most non-automated editting. The F4 key made the Brute Force SIMPL implementation very quick to program, despite the appearance of tedious entries into the SIO, signal names, and INIT. In addition, program load time was a bit longer. I repeated the tests with other timings and solutions and got similar results (very slight advantage to SIMPL+ over brute force).ДЇrom a programming point of view, it took a bit longer to write the SIMPL+, mostly due to having to launch the editor, name the file, type the code, and compile. Of course there is significant overhead in this test, so there is no easy way to compare the parsing times except to say that the SIMPL+ solution is more than (probably much more than) 6% faster than the SIMPL Brute Force. The results: On a QMRMC, I got 88 iterations from the SIMPL+ implementation, 83 for the SIMPL Brute Force and 69 for the SIMPL Tricky. They obviously have no idea how big a googleplex is.) (This was after laughing at the maximum number of bits allowed by Crestron for a binary counter - 100. I then loaded the debugger (which wasn't running during the test) and looked at the a binary counter.

The test ran 1s after program load for 60 seconds, signalling its completion with a COM port LED blink.

The loop was allowed to run for 128 iterations before taking a 0.01 second breather to keep the 1000 wave watchdog from biting. The test harness consisted a SAWPULSE from the volume, a buffer, and a SEND to send a test volume. SIMPL+ Implementation: Test for length, then then -ZZ / -xx / +xx with a mid and atoi. May be better implementations (such as using another set of EQU's and INITS for the negative case). SIMPL Implementation (Tricky): Used StoA and EQUs to decode the +/-, Z/Tens, and Z/Ones digits, Inits to convert back to analog, Asum, optional AFlip and a couple of SBuffers to pass the + or - volume. SIMPL Implementation (Brute Force): The SIO had 92 strings in it, and each digital output was connected to an input on a big INIT which generated the volume. The test: Parse into a number between -72 and +18. Just which is faster in this particular test case. I am NOT commenting on which should be used by a non-expert programmer. I am NOT commenting on other (possibly better) SIMPL implementations. There was a discussion on integration pros which got me wondering: Given the desire to obtain a volume from a receiver, and the choice is between a brute force SIO, 'Tricky' SIMPL, or a few lines of SIMPL+, which is faster.