Page 3 of 4
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:07 am
by Dare2
Psychophanta wrote:BTW, who has the very first first first version of PB? I want it !
Yeah!
Fred, you got a cd of old Pure's you want to sell or give away?
@PB - That's an oldie. I wonder if anyone (apart from Fred) has any earlier versions.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:42 am
by Fred
Some of you probably have older version, as public Windows version was a 2.00 beta
.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:28 am
by Psychophanta
I also have 2.40 in my archives.
And it was a good version, even the editor was very primitive
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:45 pm
by Randy Walker
Brice Manuel wrote:who would want to stay with v3.94 anymore?
Why would you not want to stay with 3.94 for now? 3.94 is rock-solid stable.
4.0 is nice, but with all the things added and changed, it will be a while before all the kinks are worked out and it is as reliable as 3.94 is.
It took me 5 months to convert 20000 lines of code from GFA Basic over to PureBasic. It took only 2 days to fix minor code changes going from 3.94 up to 4.0 so it really was no big effort.
Keep my users on 3.94 for now, but start proofing out 4.0 now so I can get it into my users hands quicker. That's how I look at it. In practice, I think the code changes have been neglegible in terms of handling those changes. Performance-wise, the changes are dramatic!
2 1/2 times Faster ! ! ! That's So Cool!
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:08 am
by PB
> It took me 5 months to convert 20000 lines of code from GFA Basic over to
> PureBasic. It took only 2 days to fix minor code changes going from 3.94
> up to 4.0 so it really was no big effort.
Exactly. I don't know why some people think it's this big mammoth task.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:52 pm
by Randy Walker
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
jaPBe is written and compiled in PureBasic ... Right? Why is it so much slower to load than the old 3.94 (2.5.4.22 jaPB editor)?
My program compiled in the new 4.0 loads soooo much faster than before so why is jaPBe taking so long to load?
Same goes for the native PureBasic 4.0 editor. Its slow too and I thought it was also compiled in PureBasic.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 2:34 pm
by Berikco
The loading time of an application has nothing to do with the Purebasic version its compiled in.
Only the File I/O from the program itself uses buffers in PB4
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:44 pm
by Randy Walker
Sorry Berikco ... I still don't get it. I'll try to rephrase my confusion.
My compiled code (on 3.94 compiler) launches and loads data in 5.6 seconds.
Here I am assuming jaPBe was compiled using PB 3.94.
The 2.5.4.22 jaPBe launches and loads my code in 5.9 seconds.
My compiled code (on 4.0 compiler) launches and loads data in 2.2 seconds.
Here I am assuming jaPBe was compiled using PB 4.0.
The 3.6.3.426 jaPBe launches and loads my code in 8.2 seconds.
My program is user ready 2 1/2 times faster than before, and now that I think of it, maybe jaPBe will catch up when it is compiled on the 4.0 compiler too. Assuming it was not since it is so slow.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:08 pm
by PB
> My program compiled in the new 4.0 loads soooo much faster than before
> so why is jaPBe taking so long to load?
Both editors would parse the code after loading, to hide/show procedures and
so on, so this would definitely affect the loading speed. Maybe the PureBasic
editor just does it more efficiently? All editors are not created equal. Folding
of procedures is handled differently, as is syntax coloring etc, so there you go.
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:21 am
by Brice Manuel
Exactly. I don't know why some people think it's this big mammoth task.
I guess I never understood this. If you use this logic of continually porting your projects to the latest update of PB you would never get anything finished because you will always be waiting for the "next update" with whatever new feature or bug fix it will include.
I prefer stability. Right now with PB 3.94 is the most current version. 4.0 is still in beta and judging by the bug reports, it is not yet up to par with 3.94 in the stability factor.
Time is a major issue for me, and what little time I have for programming, I need something I know will work, so I don't use beta versions. But, I am looking forward to 4.0 getting out of beta so all new projects can be done in 4.0.
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:05 am
by Randy Walker
Brice Manuel wrote:Exactly. I don't know why some people think it's this big mammoth task.
...If you use this logic of continually porting your projects to the latest update of PB you would never get anything finished because you will always be waiting for the "next update"...Time is a major issue for me...
Hi Brice ... Time is an issue for me too. That is exacly why I made the conversions on my code now instead of later. As far as updates, I only stared at 3.91 so 4.0 is the ONLY update that required me to modify "anything".
Meanwhile, like you, I also want solid performance for my users so I am NOT releasing my code under the new compiler... "yet".
Now is the time (beta or not) for me to begin proofing my code under the new compiler so when I am confident (beta or not) I can give my users the advantage of the phenominal speed increase that 4.0 offers.
If there are bugs in areas of PB that will never affect me because I don't use those instructions, who cares? If there is a bug that affects my code (beta or not) I want to know about it so I can get it fixed sooner than later. After all, show me a application that has no bugs in the final release. In that light, I have to say waiting for perfection is a waste of time.
Everyone has their own set of qualifiers and quantifiers they have to apply to establish their priorities. Personally, I think 2 1/2 times faster loading is a quantity that qualifies as high priority. I also love having code that is explicite ... like ReadString(0) which specifies the file buffer within a single command and eliminates the need for the less explicite prefacing "UseFile()" statement. Less code ... more explicite.
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:52 am
by GedB
The 30kb increase is probably down to libraries that have changed in size. Nothing to worry about.
In larger programs the savings made in decreased procedure size and unused procedure removal should more than compensate.
I just installed Ms Sql Server 2005 at work - it required 1.5gb just to intall. Now thats bloat!
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:26 pm
by Brice Manuel
Everyone has their own set of qualifiers and quantifiers they have to apply to establish their priorities.
I am sure you can imagine my disappointment when I compile a project in 4.0 and find it will not run on my NT4 computer, but a 3.94.1 compile will. It appears (I haven't had time to go through the docs so there might be a new way to do it) that 4.0 no longer allows us to use DX3 for the 2D.
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:06 pm
by Fred
Just use the NT4 subsystem, and you're done.
Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:49 pm
by Randy Walker
Brice Manuel wrote: ... (I haven't had time to go through the docs so there might be a new way to do it) ...
That was my point ... the advange in starting with the beta now ... exactly and most precisely. You don't have a lot of time so jump in early because the beta lets you do that and pick it up a little at a time without preasure. When the final hits your desk you're ready to go.
Just remember ... its the beta ... no preasure. Stay with the tried and true. If you're looking for assurance that your invested efforts are at risk because of "all the bugs" that people keep noting in this and several other threads, take a look at what they fail to mention.
Lots and lots of:
Fred wrote: Fixed
Fred wrote: Fixed
Fred wrote: Fixed
Fred wrote: Fixed
Fred wrote: Fixed
Fred wrote: Fixed
Not only are there many such posts. They are also ALL within a very short time frame. Fred's not only cranking timewise (he is one man), his new product is cranking!
Scorching HOT! Check it out (below)
...