PureBasic Forums - English

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:36 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Franco.

[dreaming]
Micro$oft sells 'Visual C++' including the MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) and says:
We have the best C compiler in the world with the best classes included.
This package is very powerful. You can create small programs and full bloated ones. You can even create DLL's (Dynamic Link Libraries)
(NOTE: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE FULL POWER OF THIS PACKAGE {LIKE THE MFC CLASSES} IF YOU CREATE A DLL)
[/dreaming]

[deja vu]
Same dream with Borland and Delphi/Kylix: NO 'GUI STUFF' ALLOWED WHILE CREATING DLL's
[/deja vu]

I like to see that PureBasic one fine day rules the {Basic} world.

No offense to anybody - but something is wrong here...

Have a nice day...

Franco

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 11:38 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Hitman.

I don't think that "piamoo" is only an advertise dude only......

See, he/she raised a BIG FLAMEWAR, oh, smart guy, but used in bad way.

I saw he appeared on some Basic program sites and posted many unsuitable posts, like this one.

Well, everyone needs to do something for living.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 12:08 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Pupil.

Originally posted by H.Brill

... It would be better, a
message stands in the helpfile in PB or in a readme file :

like : " It is not allowed to export any PB functions trough a DLL"

If this were the case, what would be the point of being able to make DLL's, you might as well rip this ability out of PB -it would have the same effect.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:27 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by H.Brill.

Hitman,

Perhaps you have seen any gosths. or it gives people, that use my synonym name. These are the forums or basic sites, that i know :
IBasic forum, Purebasic forum (engl. and german), powerbasic forum.
And in the powerbasic forum i have not post such things. I have post
in the powbasic forum 1 or 2 times since two years.
and these posts are questions.

This was my last post here.
I never wan't read such assertions.

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 2:44 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by PB.

> Free speech - no censor.
> Let the user decide whats the better compiler/interpreter.

I disagree. When it comes to business (selling PureBasic) it makes no
sense at all to mention the competition. It's a bad business practice.
Why tell potential buyers about the competition? That's just crazy.

That's like if I went to a new town and wanted KFC for lunch, but all
I saw was a McDonalds. Imagine if I went in and they said there was
a KFC two streets away -- I would go there and buy KFC instead. Same
principle applies here, in my humble opinion.

PB - Registered PureBasic Coder

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:41 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Originally posted by H.Brill
This was my last post here.
I never wan't read such assertions.

Come on, don't be fooled by other people opinions.

To PB: Yes I like competition. If another langage is better, just let the users know, there is no way to trap them in PureBasic. I doing my best to improve PureBasic, because currently, there is no equivalent.

I've just take a look out of curiosity to IBasic and frankely, it cant even compete with PureBasic. It dont even generate a real compiled code, so it cant be considered as a real langage. I won't get in details in the architecture difference of PB and IBasic but it's obvious when you do a real comparison.

Just for fun, as piamoo has requested a speed comparison:

IBasic program (compiled with the lastest demo):

Code: Select all

Declare "kernel32", GetTickCount(),int 
def x,y,start,time:int

OPENCONSOLE 

start = gettickcount()

for x=0 to 1000000
	y = y+1
next x

time = gettickcount()-start

print "time = ", time

DO 
UNTIL INKEY$  "" 
CLOSECONSOLE
END

PureBasic program:

Code: Select all

OpenConsole()
start = gettickcount_()

For x=0 To 1000000
 y = y+1
Next x

time = gettickcount_()-start

Print("time = "+Str(time))

Input()
End

Results:

IBasic : 11400 ms
PureBasic: 40 ms (285 times faster)

End of story.

Regards,

Fred - AlphaSND

Posted: **Tue Nov 12, 2002 4:52 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Franco.

Originally posted by PB

That's like if I went to a new town and wanted KFC for lunch, but all I saw was a McDonalds.
Imagine if I went in and they said there was a KFC two streets away -- I would go there and buy KFC instead.
Same principle applies here, in my humble opinion.

Well here in Oregon it's this way.
If you go to McDonalds and say: "Today I like the KFC stuff, do you have one in this town?" you get the answer where to find one.
If you are at 'Fred Meyer' and search for something but they don't have the 'style' you want... "Well Sir over the street there is 'WalMart' maybe they have it..."
The same for 'Home Depot' or 'Lowes' - I experienced it.
But we live here 'out in the woods' (like other americans would say) with frendly people - all seems to be different... and I like it.

Have a nice day...

Franco

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:34 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Ferdinand.

Well, this thread is fun over here !
I've got both Ibasic and PureBasic. Both have their merits. Purebasic is fast and compact. In Ibasic it's very easy to set the color of a control (=gadget) and that sort of stuff. Maybe I'll use Ibasic for the front-end of apps and PureBasic for computing power (in a DLL). Is there something wrong with that ? As a programmer (and registered user) of both, I can have the best of both worlds !
Heck, maybe I'll even use a third language for certain types of programs.

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:13 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

Fred wrote:
> IBasic : 11400 ms
> PureBasic: 40 ms (285 times faster)

Wow it's true! I got:
PureBasic : 10 ms
IBasic : 7041 ms

Curious thou I ran the PureBasic code several times and about half the time the result would be 10 ms and the other half it would be 0 ms! Can anyone explain this?

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:18 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

Turns out, it looks like one million is just too small a number for PureBasic+AMD 1ghz CPU.
I changed the number for both IBasic and PureBasic to one hundred million and came back with some better results:
PureBasic : 670 ms
IBasic : I will let you know when it finishes

Update: Still waiting for IBasic!
Fred wrote> PureBasic: 40 ms (285 times faster)
Looks like 285 times faster was a bit conservative.

Update 2: Ok, IBasic is finally done!
PureBasic : 670 ms

Posted: **Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:53 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by H.Brill.

wow
he is happy ! he has win a bicycle race with his
big moto-bicycle or car.
Regards :
- a moto-bicycle will be always faster as a bicycle.
- a assembler prog (a PB-prog is such a prog) will be
always faster as any language like Visual Basic, Delphi,
C, IBasic....

Assembler is the fastest language, that i know.
And for time critical operations is the ASM the best way.

This is known since a long time.

Posted: **Thu Nov 14, 2002 11:30 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Danilo.

> - a assembler prog (a PB-prog is such a prog) will be
> always faster as any language like Visual Basic, Delphi,
> C, IBasic....

All real programming languages generate executables
that have machine code in it that gets executed directly only.
They mostly dont generate it directly, but by using an assembler...
see below.

Also Delphi and C and ... and ... but not IBasic.

(interpreters are also binaries, but they interpret
the actual program (that can be built-in in the exe))

If you dont know how compilers work,
dont talk about it.

For your information:
In Delphi the Assembler is called BASM
and Microsoft uses its own Assembler MASM.
Some other (Unix?) compilers use for example AS.
Watcom C++ had its own assembler called WASM.
LCCwin32 has its own built-in assembler and
can, like PureBasic, generate ASM-output.
The difference: In PB the commandline switch
is "/COMMENTED", where it is "-S" in LCCwin32
and other C-Compilers.
Yes, many C-compilers can do it this way.

Nearly every compiler on market translates
to ASM internally and assembles the result
by using an external or internal assembler.
Thats because its much easier than compiling
from HLL to binaries directly.

The assembler can also be built-in directly
in the compiler - so you dont see this tool.
The whole process is hidden and you dont know
that it works this way (but i know - sorry

).

Its the same with PureBasic. The general
compile-process is hidden to the user.
Optionally you can make an output (/COMMENTED)
of the generated ASM file.
Well, thats a nice feature...

> Assembler is the fastest language, that i know.

Assembly language is machine language, made readable
and easier useable for humans.
The "Assembler" is the tool that assembles.

> And for time critical operations is the ASM the best way.
> This is known since a long time.

More known is that programming in general has
always to do with optimization.
ASM (machine language) is not only needed for
time-critical operations ... its needed for
everything. Without machine language there
wouldnt be any executable... there wouldnt be
computers like we use every day.

People that dont care that a program runs
200 or 1000 times slower with one language
where it runs at full speed with other languages
are not real programmers. They are wannabies or kids...

For kids its not a problem, because they still learn.
There is no chance for wannabies, because they think
they know everything - but they know nothing.

It wouldnt be _that_ bad for some projects and
a HLL programmer if one compiler produces code
that is 1 or 2 times slower than optimal.
But 200 or 1000 times slower is absolutely unacceptable
for every real programmer.

Just use the tools that generate 200 or 1000 times
faster executables... there are many hundred compilers
available that generate "fast" results.
Some can also make "very fast" results.

I heared IBasic has support for 3D.
Does that mean that a 3D-game written with IBasic
runs at 1 Frame per 10 seconds, where it runs with
30 fps by using real compilers ??

I begin to wonder why most of what you say
in the forums is totally nonsense...

cya,
...Danilo
(registered PureBasic user)

Posted: **Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:02 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

> I heared IBasic has support for 3D.
> Does that mean that a 3D-game written with IBasic
> runs at 1 Frame per 10 seconds, where it runs with
> 30 fps by using real compilers ??

Lucky for IBasic it uses DirectX, however if you tried to write a (cant help but laugh) software 3D engine with IBasic then yes, I imagine it would be quite slow.

Posted: **Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:46 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Ok, this thread is over. It goes to nowhere.

Fred - AlphaSND

PureBasic Forums - English

I discovered a language two days ago.