Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by WolfgangS.
Is it similar like C ? I know, i´m just a wannabe but seems really interesting for all users .. especially for the Blitz Basic users ...
Thanks
Wolfi
How fast is PB really ?!?!
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by MrVainSCL.
Hi WolfgangS
Welcome in the PureBasic forum! Its a good question and its nice to see more and more BlitzBasic users are interested in this great language!
PureBasic produces really very fast and small applications... Just test the free demoversion with there examples...
Surely PureBasic will produce much faster and smaller programs as written in C/C++ or any other basic language like VisualBasic, PowerBasic, BlitzBasic *smile*! The reason for this is that PB will link available commands (libs) written in pure and high optimized assembler to one final executeable like BlitzBasic on Amiga... Surely a pure assembler written program or PB-Lib is ever smaller and faster as any other language!
I personaly love PureBasic because its fast, easy to learn, produces very small executeables, Full API/GUIs and its portable to Amiga or Linux like the announced BlitzMax version
I personaly use the full version of Blitz and Blitz3D too! PureBasic is very good if you want to code any applications... You can code small games too but there are some game based commands still missed - Fred is working on this! If you want code only 2D/3D games you should use Blitz or Blitz3D until Fred will add/fix some more game based commands in PB! Btw. you cant code any 3D shooter in the actual version... Most people use PB only for coding applications...
Anyway, would be nice to see you as new PureBasic user !!!
PIII450, 256MB Ram, 6GB HD, RivaTNT, DirectX8.1, SB AWE64, Win98SE + Updates...
greetz
MrVainSCL! aka Thorsten
Hi WolfgangS
Welcome in the PureBasic forum! Its a good question and its nice to see more and more BlitzBasic users are interested in this great language!
PureBasic produces really very fast and small applications... Just test the free demoversion with there examples... Surely PureBasic will produce much faster and smaller programs as written in C/C++ or any other basic language like VisualBasic, PowerBasic, BlitzBasic *smile*! The reason for this is that PB will link available commands (libs) written in pure and high optimized assembler to one final executeable like BlitzBasic on Amiga... Surely a pure assembler written program or PB-Lib is ever smaller and faster as any other language!
I personaly love PureBasic because its fast, easy to learn, produces very small executeables, Full API/GUIs and its portable to Amiga or Linux like the announced BlitzMax version
I personaly use the full version of Blitz and Blitz3D too! PureBasic is very good if you want to code any applications... You can code small games too but there are some game based commands still missed - Fred is working on this! If you want code only 2D/3D games you should use Blitz or Blitz3D until Fred will add/fix some more game based commands in PB! Btw. you cant code any 3D shooter in the actual version... Most people use PB only for coding applications...
Anyway, would be nice to see you as new PureBasic user
!!!PIII450, 256MB Ram, 6GB HD, RivaTNT, DirectX8.1, SB AWE64, Win98SE + Updates...
greetz
MrVainSCL! aka Thorsten
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.
Mr Vain is very entousiastic and that's very nice
. Anyway, some thing must be cleared up: PureBasic may be faster than C++, but think than new c++ compiler optimize their code a lot and can produce very very fast code, often faster than pb code. Yes, the MS team working on MS VisualC++ aren't all loosers . The main advantage of PureBasic is you can optimize yourself the code to the max, by reassembling the final exec. That could make the difference. Another point is the PureBasic libraries which are very optimized. I've done some testing with BlitzBasic (to see...) on a standard For/Next loop stuff and PB was 70% faster, which is really huge. AFAIK, in basic section, only PowerBasic can compete with PureBasic, due to its excellent compiler. If you know another basic with very high performance, just tell me, I'm interrested
Bye,
Edited by - fred on 05 February 2002 23:17:27
Mr Vain is very entousiastic and that's very nice
. Anyway, some thing must be cleared up: PureBasic may be faster than C++, but think than new c++ compiler optimize their code a lot and can produce very very fast code, often faster than pb code. Yes, the MS team working on MS VisualC++ aren't all loosers . The main advantage of PureBasic is you can optimize yourself the code to the max, by reassembling the final exec. That could make the difference. Another point is the PureBasic libraries which are very optimized. I've done some testing with BlitzBasic (to see...) on a standard For/Next loop stuff and PB was 70% faster, which is really huge. AFAIK, in basic section, only PowerBasic can compete with PureBasic, due to its excellent compiler. If you know another basic with very high performance, just tell me, I'm interrested Bye,
Edited by - fred on 05 February 2002 23:17:27
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by blueb.
Interesting topic.
How about someone thinking up a few 'standard' tests that users could use to test against compilers they are familiar with? Speed isn't everything of course, but that's what everyone wants to know.
Tests could include speed and size of the required files.
Regards,
--Bob
Interesting topic.
How about someone thinking up a few 'standard' tests that users could use to test against compilers they are familiar with? Speed isn't everything of course, but that's what everyone wants to know.
Tests could include speed and size of the required files.
Regards,
--Bob
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Manolo.
Hehehehehe...
-------
YaBB Administrator Posts: 163 System Administrator Re: Decreasing the size of a final .exe ?« Reply #5 on: February 2nd, 2002, 8:34pm »
Sorry but I just haven't had time to look at it yet. Besides a 300K executable is not a big thing considering western digital's anouncement of a 160GB drive
----
Manolo
Fred, read the next from the Pyxia Administrator:
I've just tried IBasic and a For/Next loop takes 100x more time than in PureBasic. Conclusion: it's an interpreter, not a compiler. It can't be used for serious programs.
Fred - AlphaSND
Hehehehehe...
-------
YaBB Administrator Posts: 163 System Administrator Re: Decreasing the size of a final .exe ?« Reply #5 on: February 2nd, 2002, 8:34pm »
Sorry but I just haven't had time to look at it yet. Besides a 300K executable is not a big thing considering western digital's anouncement of a 160GB drive
----
Manolo
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by MrVainSCL.
))
PIII450, 256MB Ram, 6GB HD, RivaTNT, DirectX8.1, SB AWE64, Win98SE + Updates...
greetz
MrVainSCL! aka Thorsten
*llllllllllooooooooooooooooooollllllllll* - HelloWorldBesides a 300K executable is not a big thing considering western digital's anouncement of a 160GB drive...
))PIII450, 256MB Ram, 6GB HD, RivaTNT, DirectX8.1, SB AWE64, Win98SE + Updates...
greetz
MrVainSCL! aka Thorsten
-
BackupUser
- PureBasic Guru
- Posts: 16777133
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:42 pm