32-bit or 64-bit application using PureBasic

[Jan2004]

In which version of PB: PureBasic(x86 - 32 bit) or PureBasic(x64 - 64 bit) you make your software for Windows?

[Josh]

The best is to offer both versions

[Tenaja]

In which version of PB: PureBasic(x86 - 32 bit) or PureBasic(x64 - 64 bit) you make your software for Windows?

For my personal stuff, I only use the 32-bit, even though I'm on W7-64. The 64-bit version of PB is not as mature as the 32-bit version. Since Fred codes the libraries in C, those are fine, but the code that is generated by PB is not as efficient. I have seen a few cases where the 64-bit version generated extra instructions, so it was bloated in comparison to the 32-bit. This is unlikely to effect most programs, but for time sensitive loops that are called a lot, especially if you do not make heavy use of the libraries, the difference is measurable. If you are making heavy use of 64-bit numbers, then it may make up the difference, but most of my code does not require more than 32 bits.

[Jan2004]

thank you for remarks.

[RichAlgeni]

I use the 64 bit on Windows Server 2003 and 2008. I use the socket library for just about everything. To say it's rock solid doesn't completely do justice to PureBasic.

I love it!

[Tenaja]

I use the 64 bit on Windows Server 2003 and 2008. I use the socket library for just about everything. To say it's rock solid doesn't completely do justice to PureBasic.

I did not say it was not solid; I said it was not as mature. That is a fact; the 32-bit version was released in October 2000 (according to the History), and the 64-bit version was released, when?
...For OSX it was just this past November (2012).
...For Linux, it was in '09 with 4.40
...For Windows, it was in '08 with 4.30.

Fred just made some improvements to the 64-bit output recently (this spring), and I don't know if they made the last release or not. Clearly, it is not as mature. Good enough for most? Of course. Better for some? Likely. But that does not make it more mature that the 32-bit output.

[RichAlgeni]

Teneja, sorry, I didn't mean to infer you said that. I just meant that I believe it is more than rock solid, as I am running Fire and EMS software with it. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't use it.

[Tenaja]

No worries.

[RichAlgeni]

I run 64 bit multi-threaded server applications on Windows Server 2003 and 2008. I try to test them thoroughly, and use on demand logging. I also use Power Tools from Mark Russinovich, to monitor disk activity, memory and CPU load.

[USCode]

I run 64 bit multi-threaded server applications on Windows Server 2003 and 2008. I try to test them thoroughly, and use on demand logging. I also use Power Tools from Mark Russinovich, to monitor disk activity, memory and CPU load.

Hi Rich,
Are you saying part of the EMS software product you work on is written in PB?
If so, can you share how you are using PB there?
Thanks

[RichAlgeni]

Hi Rich,
Are you saying part of the EMS software product you work on is written in PB?
If so, can you share how you are using PB there?
Thanks

Sure, Web Server, message server, interface to PostgreSql, external CAD interfaces. mapping, reporting. Just about everything!