PureBasic Forums - English

I have probablyu +1'd this already, but It's time to resurrect this topic.

The first set of ARM based Windows PC's is coming. Now, the top line ARMs have Core i7 xxxx speed (I think 6xxx), and I have heard of two companies making Surface-like Windows PC's with ARM processors.

Considering my primary PC is a Surface now, and for college kids Chromebooks are the main thing, 86 is going to get hit even harder.

How about targeting the JVM instead? A platform that's already multi-os, multi-architecture and offers a wealth of functionality. Iirc the OpenJDK has replaced Dalvik in Android too.

Ugggh, that is a huge departure from tight, small, native exe's.
LLVM is the way of the future. This technology has spawned scores of high level languages as well as indie syntax of new language concepts. It is compiling close to gcc speeds and has big corporate backing, guaranteeing future development.

skywalk wrote:Ugggh, that is a huge departure from tight, small, native exe's.

I think portability and future growth should be of greater concern than using 0.00001 percent of the ram of a pc!

Perhaps LLVM can help with that, but I would support anything that gets the job done asap.

Even the slowest phones are faster than the fastest x86 processors at the time Fred started this journey, and as much as code size was pretty much an antiquated idea ten years ago for those of us who remember counting bytes, it is even more moot now. And yes, I have often fallen into the trap of overworking code to make it better when it was already good enough.

Tenaja wrote:

skywalk wrote:Ugggh, that is a huge departure from tight, small, native exe's.

I think portability and future growth should be of greater concern than using 0.00001 percent of the ram of a pc!

Perhaps LLVM can help with that, but I would support anything that gets the job done asap.

Even the slowest phones are faster than the fastest x86 processors at the time Fred started this journey, and as much as code size was pretty much an antiquated idea ten years ago for those of us who remember counting bytes, it is even more moot now. And yes, I have often fallen into the trap of overworking code to make it better when it was already good enough.

Much indeed, we no longer need small compact executables. Every PC built over the last decade will handle bulkier executables none the same as they handle PB executables now. Focus should shift more towards highly optimized (LLVM/Clang) executables and feature support. Just the switch to a LLVM compiler alone (there has been talk about doing this) would be a huge step forward. With that in place more possibilities are presented (such as ARM support).

Opcode wrote:

Tenaja wrote:

skywalk wrote:Ugggh, that is a huge departure from tight, small, native exe's.

I think portability and future growth should be of greater concern than using 0.00001 percent of the ram of a pc!
Even the slowest phones are faster than the fastest x86 processors at the time Fred started this journey, and as much as code size was pretty much an antiquated idea ten years ago for those of us who remember counting bytes, it is even more moot now. And yes, I have often fallen into the trap of overworking code to make it better when it was already good enough.

Much indeed, we no longer need small compact executables. Every PC built over the last decade will handle bulkier executables none the same as they handle PB executables now.

Why limit PB to PC? ioT with GB's of ram and multi-core processors does not make sense. We can have LLVM without a boat load of dependent libraries and jit machines.

skywalk wrote:

Opcode wrote:

Tenaja wrote:

skywalk wrote:Ugggh, that is a huge departure from tight, small, native exe's.

I think portability and future growth should be of greater concern than using 0.00001 percent of the ram of a pc!
Even the slowest phones are faster than the fastest x86 processors at the time Fred started this journey, and as much as code size was pretty much an antiquated idea ten years ago for those of us who remember counting bytes, it is even more moot now. And yes, I have often fallen into the trap of overworking code to make it better when it was already good enough.

Much indeed, we no longer need small compact executables. Every PC built over the last decade will handle bulkier executables none the same as they handle PB executables now.

Why limit PB to PC? ioT with GB's of ram and multi-core processors does not make sense. We can have LLVM without a boat load of dependent libraries and jit machines.

By no means did I want to come off as limiting PB to PC. However even with LLVM as the compiler I don't think executables will end up too bloated to run fast and fluid. Hardware these days even in the IoT space are miles faster than it was when the PureBasic project began. IoT devices these days can in fact even fluidly run a full desktop operating system. The hardware has came that far that fast and only continues to progress. Very much the same with PC hardware, we have instruction sets available across the industry (yes even in IoT devices) that have been baked into processors for the past many years that PureBasic doesn't currently utilize without writing your own ASM routine to do so. That of which compilers like LLVM can automatically do on its own with a simple compiler switch. Moral being, I only hope that PureBasic does adopt LLVM as a compiler and continues to keep up with ongoing trends within software, to better make use of hardware. PureBasic is great the way that it is, however steps forward towards the modern era of computing and out of yesteryear would only excite us all.

+1