PixelBlaze interpreter performance vs ARTI

An associate of mine is working on developing an interpreter for our sound reactive fork of WLED (for the ESP32) and it’s progressing quite nicely.

He is creating an interpreted language that includes some of the functionality from the NeoPixelBus and FastLED libraries (as used by WLED). Interestingly, it runs at a FAR lower frame rate than what you see with the interpreted language on a PixelBlaze.

So, I’m just wondering how PixelBlaze is able to maintain such a high FPS with an interpreted language compared to what we’re seeing with the one under development.

In the meantime, I’m spending my time straddling between the worlds of WLED, FastLED and my PixelBlaze v2 devices.


I spent a lot of time optimizing for speed. :mage: :crystal_ball:


Yea, that pretty well goes without saying. Both are wizards IMHO.

No doubt, but you are asking a very complex question that depends on your interpreter’s implementation. There’s no simple answer. It’s also part of the magic that makes PB what it is.

Yeah, I’m hoping ARTI becomes a PB-lite style inside WLED but I doubt it’ll be easy to clone more than the basics, and it certainly won’t be as fast.