PureBasic Forums - English

[Edit] Actually, forget it. I'm over arguing with people on forums. It's not worth it.

> No, I will not explain

Fair enough, I guess. A shame, though.

> I spent more time replying you in another thread for nothing,
> you simply went away while the discussion was on

I obviously forgot about it due to real life. Point it out and I'll reply.

> Disable it is not the same, that will always add some code to your exe

I made an exe, as did another user, and our results showed faster
execution with a small variable name than a longer variable name.
Fact. That's all I know. It's thus been proven to have an effect.

> It is.

Explain the results of Vera, IdeasVacuum and myself, then?

> Strange? Possibly to do with the overall load on the CPU at the time,
> but I expected the results to be near identical

Ah, so your own tests are showing similar results as mine. Weird, eh?

I know it's not "much" of a real-world difference, but it theoretically
shouldn't have any such difference ...

> And for sure, you have not use the debugger and not disable it

Did you not see "DisableDebugger" at the start of my tests? ;)

> Compile it to an exe (use Msg Requesters to report result)

Okay, did that, and below are the results. The short variable
name tests are both shorter to complete than ...

> the variable name length is immaterial

Perhaps not. When I run the following test, the shorter variable
loops are always finished slightly sooner than the longer names.

Maybe someone can point out if I'm doing something wrong?
Because it seems to match Vera's claim... every time. :shock:

d ...

Fangbeast, I just noticed "not Sydney" in your avatar.
I grew up in Sydney, my boy. What's wrong with it?

> If the drive letter is a mapped network drive, and you are not
> connected to the required network, you still get #True

Same if there's no media in a DVD drive: it returns #True, even
though there's nothing there to access at all.

> I didn't found this

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... 7&p=424460

The answer: Skywalk said that Freak told him "no" to this request.

> is there a way to force an EditorGadget to NOT scroll

Don't fill it with more text than it can display?

If it doesn't scroll, then what happens with the unseen text?

> I want to make project to my school what block facebook, youtube, and porn site

So block them in the "hosts" file and you're done:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/27350/be ... osts-file/

> Why I should hide the program? Because if I don't hide user can close it.

Better to just disable the Task Manager instead:

http://www.pctools.com/guides/registry/detail/163/

That way, it doesn't look like you're writing malware.

> It's irrelevant

Only if you upgrade PureBasic with each new release.

For people sticking with an older version for whatever reason,
like I need to for one app because I need Gnozal's libs, then
#PB_OS_Windows_Future will NOT represent a future Windows
at all, but will clash with #PB_OS_Windows ...

Like Shield said:

Debug #PB_OS_Windows_8 ; 90
Debug #PB_OS_Windows_Future ; 200

My guess is that #PB_OS_Windows_10 will be 100 when
Windows 10 actually get released to the public.

That future value is very low, IMO. It should be 900 or so,
because at this rate the value of 200 will be reached ...