PureBasic Forums - English

Posted: **Sat Mar 01, 2003 11:25 pm**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Franco.

Hi fellas,
after reading some really negative topics on this forum I want to share some positive thoughts

Yesterday I found test code for different programming languages, mostly basic @:

http://electronicauy.8bit.co.uk

So I wanted to know where PureBasic stays and converted the code to Pure.
On my machine (Duron 950Mhz Sony Notebook) I had the following result:
Visual Basic EXE = 12s
BCX Basic EXE = 6s ;this is basic code translated to C and compiled with LCC-Win32
PureBasic EXE = 2.3s ;

PureBasic with enabled Debugger (F5 in Editor) = 3s
Pascal EXE = 6s
Didn't test the other ones...

Well I don't know how 'good' the test code is (in general) but I had a good feeling after processing the tests.

On faster machines you get shorter times, so for a real comparison you need to start all EXE's on your computer. (on the website)

The only negative thing I found was, the BCX/LCC-Win32 EXE file is 8kb small and the PureBasic EXE 18kb.
But on the other hand, all the other EXE's are bigger

For the ones of you that are interested in the translated Pure code:

Code: Select all

OpenWindow(1,224, 172, 205, 64,#PB_Window_SystemMenu,"Test Speed PureBasic")
CreateGadgetList(WindowID()) 
StringGadget(1,  4, 4, 128, 20, "") 
ButtonGadget(2, 136, 4, 60, 20, "Begin") 
TextGadget(3,4, 28, 128, 16, "Elapsed: 0") 
ButtonGadget(4, 136, 28, 60, 20, "Exit") 

  Repeat
    EventID.l = WaitWindowEvent()
    Select EventGadgetID() 
      Case 2
        Gosub ExecuteTest
      Case 4
        End
    EndSelect
  Until EventID = #PB_EventCloseWindow

End

ExecuteTest:

    SetGadgetText(3, "Please Wait .")
    
  StartTimer.l = GetTickCount_()
    
  For LoopFor1.l = 1 To 10000000
    Result1.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result2.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result3.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result4.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
  
    Result1=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result2=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result3=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result4=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
  
    If LoopFor1 = 100000
      SetGadgetText(3, "Please Wait .") 
    ElseIf LoopFor1 = 1000000
      SetGadgetText(3, "Please Wait .") 
    ElseIf LoopFor1 = 10000000
      SetGadgetText(3, "Please Wait .") 
    EndIf
  Next LoopFor1
  
  SetGadgetText(1, "Result:" + Str(Result1 + Result2))
     
  ElapsedTime.l = GetTickCount_()-StartTimer

  SetGadgetText(3, "Elapsed: " + Str(ElapsedTime) +  " ms")

Return

Have a nice day...

Franco

Posted: **Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:22 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Justin.

PB can beat the size, with an api window compiles in 7.5 kb. using an api dialog should be even smaller.

Code: Select all

msg.MSG
wc.WNDCLASSEX

hinst=GetModuleHandle_(0)
classname$="mywndpbclass003"

procedure ExecuteTest()
  shared hwed,hwst
  sendmessage_(hwst,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Please Wait .")
    
  StartTimer.l = GetTickCount_()
    
  For LoopFor1.l = 1 To 10000000
    Result1.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result2.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result3.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result4.f=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
  
    Result1=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result2=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result3=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
    Result4=((100000 * 100) / 1000) + Sqr(4)
  
    If LoopFor1 = 100000
      sendmessage_(hwst,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Please Wait .")
    ElseIf LoopFor1 = 1000000
      sendmessage_(hwst,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Please Wait .")
    ElseIf LoopFor1 = 10000000
      sendmessage_(hwst,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Please Wait .")
    EndIf
  Next LoopFor1
  
  sendmessage_(hwed,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Result:" + Str(Result1 + Result2))
   
  ElapsedTime.l = GetTickCount_()-StartTimer

  sendmessage_(hwst,#WM_SETTEXT,0,"Elapsed: " + Str(ElapsedTime) +  " ms")
endprocedure

procedure windowproc(hwnd,msg,wparam,lparam)
select msg
  case #WM_COMMAND
    select wparam
      case 2
        ExecuteTest()
        
      case 4
        PostQuitMessage_(0)
    endselect
    retval=0

  case #WM_CLOSE
    PostQuitMessage_(0)
    retval=0

  default
    fakeendselect : procedurereturn DefWindowProc_(hwnd,msg,wparam,lparam)
endselect
procedurereturn retval
endprocedure

wc\cbSize=SizeOf(WNDCLASSEX)
wc\style=#CS_HREDRAW|#CS_VREDRAW
wc\lpfnWndProc=@windowproc()
wc\cbClsExtra=0
wc\cbWndExtra=0
wc\hInstance=hinst
wc\hIcon=0
wc\hCursor=LoadCursor_(#NULL,#IDC_ARROW)
wc\hbrBackground=GetSysColorBrush_(#COLOR_MENU)
wc\lpszMenuName=#NULL
wc\lpszClassName=@classname$
wc\hIconSm=0

RegisterClassEx_(@wc)

hwmain=CreateWindowEx_(0,classname$,"Test Speed PureBasic",#WS_SYSMENU,224,172,205,90,0,#null,hinst,0)
hwed=CreateWindowEx_(#WS_EX_CLIENTEDGE,"Edit","",#WS_CHILD|#WS_VISIBLE,4,4,128,20,hwmain,1,hinst,0)
hwbt1=CreateWindowEx_(0,"Button","Begin",#WS_CHILD|#WS_VISIBLE|#BS_PUSHBUTTON,136,4,60,20,hwmain,2,hinst,0)
hwst=CreateWindowEx_(0,"Static","Elapsed: 0",#WS_CHILD|#WS_VISIBLE,4,28,128,16,hwmain,3,hinst,0)
hwbt2=CreateWindowEx_(0,"Button","Exit",#WS_CHILD|#WS_VISIBLE|#BS_PUSHBUTTON,136,28,60,20,hwmain,4,hinst,0)

ShowWindow_(hwmain,#SW_SHOWNORMAL)
UpdateWindow_(hwmain)

while GetMessage_(@msg,#null,0,0)
  TranslateMessage_(@msg)
  DispatchMessage_(@msg)
wend

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:24 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by koehler.

Hmm, having a discussion on another board, and it seems folks don't believe PB is as fast as C++. Now, I thought that was what I heard, wasn't it?

Either way, anyone with any decent C++ vs PB examples?

If it is not as fast as C++, thats fine. However, if it is then I would love to find out if that is really true.

--
1980 Applesoft Basic, '81 6502 Assembler, '82 Pascal, '96 C, '00 Blitz Basic
2003 Pure Basic - History does repeat itself.

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:08 am**

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

Depending on what you compare. On the commandset, PB is faster than C++ (using specialized commands). On the generated code, there is some cases where C++ is faster, especially in array and loop. Thanks to a very good optimizer and instructions scheduler. But PB is going closer at every new release. BTW, comparing PB to the state of the art MS Visual C++ compiler seems a bit odd..

PureBasic Forums - English

Found Little Speed Test On The Net