PureBasic Forums - English

candidate for flooding 88.191.63.41


nice link : http://sd-11688.dedibox.fr/english/view ... 13&t=47624

anyway , all respect to frogs netmaestro

i think they said like this for make monkeys buy it ,to sounds important. but really is better than that microsoft's garbages.
i think was build it in fasm .

again the monkey ...
breeze4me if the asm code looks the same is one conclusion : purebasic have the best compiler i ever seen,
better than visual c++ or other microsoft's garbages

rmax=1000
howmannytimes=10



;check if timeGetTime_() it's work
startscript = timeGetTime_()



stopscript = timeGetTime_()
wasnothing= stopscript-startscript


startscript = timeGetTime_()

Delay(howmannytimes)

stopscript = timeGetTime_()
washowmannytimesmilisecconds= stopscript-startscript ...

why monkey? we cannot think here because you find the banana?

CompilerIf #PB_Compiler_Debugger
End
CompilerEndIf

Procedure.q DiffFileTime(*StartTime.FILETIME, *EndTime.FILETIME)
ProcedureReturn PeekQ(*EndTime) - PeekQ(*StartTime)
EndProcedure

Global.FILETIME KernelStartTime, KernelEndTime, UserStartTime, UserEndTime, Dummy1, Dummy2
Global.q kt, ut, cnt ...

well i think this can be a little example

For x=1 To 10000
For y=1 To 10000
For z=1 To 10000
a=x
b=y
c=z
w=a
a=b
b=c
c=w
Debug Str(a)+","+Str(b)+","+Str(c)
z+1
Delay(1) ;for a big job not for amateurs
Next
Next
Next

x=1
While x<10001
y=1
While y<10001
z=1
While z<10001
a=x
b ...

re:
My result:
(CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 630 Propus 2.8GHz)

10,000,000 loops of "While ... Wend" ; 23 ~ 28 ms
10,000,000 loops of "For ... Next" ; 24 ~ 26 ms

Thus, the difference is negligible.



how i already said,there is a difference.
your results are the best !!!

the "small" differences you ...

Thorium with his hammer ...anyway you dance very well :lol: :lol: :lol:
Continue like this ...

Fix your time messuring first.

hmmm ... is already calculated you need JUST to look CAREFULLY the results on screen to make decisions.....
Delay(howmannytimes) it's the measure !!!

..api windows ...

nice but is wrong .... you are wrong.
can you did it again ? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

anyway nice asm solution but isn't close :mrgreen: :lol: :lol:


I said you leveled the timing of the two loops by putting a delay inside.
=
what you are seeing there :delay(1) is one miliseccond known ...

breeze4me thank you man !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you !!!!!

for execution:19531
while execution:19532


try to bigger processors (over dual core) you will get other data

yes!

now try it for 3000 000 times you will understand it

then try to modify a script with graphics ,3d too , i sow some ...

there are people(MAYBE not you,not sure) that make confusion between for and while , so was no question was a demo that for is slow and while is speeding up.

giving this example i said : this is equal for any "language" (script interpreter/pre compiler/compiler) the "for" is slower than "while ...

not really wasn't my intention to do this ... you wrong understand,
the facts will be right this : you must get a number bigger for "for 's execution" than "while execution" wich is great !!!

questo erat demonstrandum

be sure you have buyed purebasic , here i have not so i don't know if work ...

The difference between for and while in any programming language :

howmannytimes=10000



;check if timeGetTime_() it's work
startscript = timeGetTime_()



stopscript = timeGetTime_()
wasnothing= stopscript-startscript


startscript = timeGetTime_()

Delay(howmannytimes)

stopscript ...