Page 5 of 6
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:42 pm
by Polo
can't wait for the source, it's getting better !
btw, it would be cool if you would change the math function :
write that :
var=add(var1,var2)
is more annoying than :
var=var1+var2
hope you see what i mean

sorry for the english

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:00 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi Polo, the main problem to change maths functions, it's that i must to code a new system to parse maths, now it works as any other command, that define its priority on a easy way. On the way that you say, require a lot more of code convert x+(3+r/3) to Add(x,Add(3,Div(r,3))), it require first math operations priority, and after this it require to parse brackets correctly to made operations as you put on your code, i want to add this feature, but not at the moment, i want to clean and optimize the compiler, the runtime is on a stable state, but the compiler need a serious optimize before made this type of changes.
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:05 pm
by TronDoc
BalrogSoft wrote:Hi TronDoc, yes, you can post the link, i saw your application theWrap, i will include on ScriptVM links, it's a good utility to use with ScriptVM also...
Many thanks Pedro!
SVMfighters.EXE uncompressed{current version of theWRAP}
SVMfightersD.EXE compressed{new (unreleased) version of theWRAP using Mischa's D-LIB}
both contain the sound and image files in the .exe
those files are temporarily extracted upon execution
and deleted upon program exit.
I'd appreciate hearing how both version perform on various users' systems
since some anti-virus programs' background monitoring seem to slow
the extraction WAY down for the 'D' version.
Thanks all.
Joe Block
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:37 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi TronDoc, i tried both versions, and i dont see any change in time execution and i have a antivirus actived, i dont know how it work on more slow computers, my computer specs: P4 Celeron 2.6Ghz, 512Mb of RAM DDR 333Mhz.
Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:57 pm
by TronDoc
BalrogSoft wrote:Hi TronDoc, i tried both versions,: P4 Celeron 2.6Ghz, 512Mb of RAM DDR 333Mhz.
many thanks!
any body else?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 2:34 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi, a new little update available on the web (v0.61) with source code, and a important bug solved, i discovered a big compiler bug solving a little bug related with arrays and spaces between equal symbol, the bug make that scriptvm execute on a different way all commands with return, and now it's solved and it works a little more faster. Bye...
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:57 pm
by fsw
BalrogSoft wrote:Hi, a new little update available on the web (v0.61) with source code, and a important bug solved, i discovered a big compiler bug solving a little bug related with arrays and spaces between equal symbol, the bug make that scriptvm execute on a different way all commands with return, and now it's solved and it works a little more faster. Bye...
Pedro,
how can I download the new version?
Thanks
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:19 pm
by Polo
Hi, thank's
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:33 pm
by DominiqueB
tried to compile the editor, but menu doesn't show at all !
UpdateStatusBar() not needed anymore ! and not recognised anymore.
MenuHeight is a function so must be writen MenuHeight().
Compiled with 3.91 beta2 on a W98se computer.
Thank's again for ScriptVM !
Dominique.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:01 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi Dominique, ScriptVM was compiled with PB 3.81, you can delete MenuHeight, if you change it to MenuHeight(), it don't show as it was designed, it's a mistake. UpdateStatusBar() is not supported anymore on PB 3.91, but not on PB 3.81, on this moment i have two copies of PB, one PB 3.81 for ScriptVM, the compiler dont work well with 3.91, and i have also PB 3.91b for other projects like iCamPlay. ScriptVM Compiler works perfectly with 3.81, i will continue with 3.81 probably, because the compiler or the runtime don't need commands of new versions, the runtime use API to made it more little, and the compiler don't need special things to use with newer versions...
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:25 pm
by Polo
anyway it would be cool to make a 3.91 version

btw, do you know why your compiled runtime is 17kb, but when i compile the runtime (with last beta), it compile fine (with a few changes), but the size is something like 57kb !!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:49 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi Polo, first the compiler runtime is only 14.5 kb, and its attached on the compiler, the runtime that you say is the runtime for svm files, and have a icon that increase the size. And about why your compiled version are bigger than my exes, is for UPX, all executables of ScriptVM are compressed with UPX, and the virtual code is compressed with Packer library, it made that scriptvm generated executables be very small, the object code of ScriptVM Fighters only have 1.89 kb, and add it the ScriptVM runtime for exes that its 14.5k, and final exe is 16.4 kb. To compile and pack with upx correctly, you must compile the runtime and pack with upx, then compile the compiler, and pack the compiler with upx.
I've got it !
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:56 pm
by DominiqueB
Here are my conclusions about the work i've done on the editor's code:
a) You've to give a different ID to Main menu and to Popup menu !
If CreateMenu(0, WindowID()) for the main menu, and
If CreatePopupMenu(1) for the popup menu as example.
Now the menu appears at the good place and is showing !
b) Take away the UpdateStatusbar() function.
With these modif, the code compiles ok under the latest release of Pure:
v3.91b2
Thank's for the very good work !
Dominique.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:07 pm
by BalrogSoft
Hi again Dominique, thanks for your explains, but the main problem is the compiler, not the editor or the runtime, with the changes requiered the editor and runtime works perfectly on pb 3.91, i don't tried the compiler on pb 3.91 beta 2, but on other versions dont work well.
hum . . .
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:32 pm
by DominiqueB
Well,
the good question is: can two menu got the same id without conflict ?
If popupmenu is a "normal" menu then it shouldn't have the same id as the main menu ?
Is the "bug" now present in the v3.91b2 or was it in v3.90 that accepted it and the v3.91b2 ok ?
Only Fred could answer.
But anyway it works for me, so i only can thank you anyway
Dominique.