Thanks *likes the idea of being mad Mat*thefool wrote:Wise words, mr. maD
however it runs quite good here, actually.
5 seconds startup isnt too bad.

Thanks *likes the idea of being mad Mat*thefool wrote:Wise words, mr. maD
however it runs quite good here, actually.
5 seconds startup isnt too bad.
Mr. Hat?MrMat wrote:Thanks *likes the idea of being mad Mat*thefool wrote:Wise words, mr. maD
however it runs quite good here, actually.
5 seconds startup isnt too bad.I expect Java is a lot faster than may be expected and there is even software that will compile Java to native machine code, e.g. GCJ and Excelsior JET, neither of which i've used but they sound interesting.
A superbly written VM will be about five times slower than average compiled code. If a lot of preprocessing is done then:Heathen wrote:I disagree with you, vms are not always slow. Depending on how much preprocessing is done, they can be very fast.Trond wrote:Interpreters and virtual machines are all crap. They're not fast enough. Sure, you can't expect an interpreter to be fast. Is that an excuse? I sent you a Fiat instead of a Lamborghini you ordered so don't expect it to be fast?
By the way, I can make a working Basic interpreter too (not as obfuscated), but who wants an interpreter?
Don't make me laugh. Try for example Art of Illusion ( http://www.artofillusion.org/ ). It's slow, just like anything else written in Java.thefool wrote:heh i bet you. Java IS fast. VERY fast!Trond wrote:Interpreters and virtual machines are all crap. They're not fast enough. Sure, you can't expect an interpreter to be fast. Is that an excuse? I sent you a Fiat instead of a Lamborghini you ordered so don't expect it to be fast?
By the way, I can make a working Basic interpreter too (not as obfuscated), but who wants an interpreter?
Probably your interpreter is a lot better than Sun's.Killswitch wrote:I'm writing an interpreter atm. It's called 'Spectacle', there's some (PureBasic) source floating about on the forums - but it's quite old now. Have a look for it.
I don't think it's that slow!
Five seconds isn't too bad? PureBasic starts in 3/4. Microsoft Word starts in 3. You seriously must be using Firefox too.thefool wrote:Wise words, mr. maDMrMat wrote:NetBeans uses Swing in which each gadget is effectively hand-drawn. This is slower but fits in with Sun's "write once, run anywhere" mantra because it is independent of the OS it is running on. Another graphical interface library is SWT, as used by Eclipse, which acts as a wrapper around the native OS GUI routines, just like PB does as is thus faster and feels more "natural". On the downside this approach requires updating the library for each OS it is to run on. It is up to the author what they use.
however it runs quite good here, actually.
5 seconds startup isnt too bad.
Then a lot of web pages where people have used Java applets for menus will not work. If Java had a proper garbage collector it would simply delete the programs instead of running them.venom wrote:I wonder if Trond has the java runtimes install on his machine? He might want to remove that crap.
Absolutly true but in fact it doesn't matter because it's horrible to use because its so slow. If you let it run for lets say 3 hours while doing something else and maximize it again it took me 3 minutes to get up on the screen (on a 2.8 ghz PC). That's simply unacceptable Purebasic needs less than a second to come up again. So better a not that feature rich IDE I can work with than this slow crap.NetBeans has more Features than the Purebasic IDE