Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:57 am
Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by horia.
Hello ,
Since 1976 , I began on mainframes , then on PDP 11 with Fortran and Assembler . On PC - Microsoft Fortran(4.0 - 5.1) and MASM. I built my own IDE , my own graphical libraries ,simulated assembly in-line and a visual GUI like VB , for DOS VGA .I don't like Pascal and C ( 
) . VB is fine , but ... , the same other languages ...PureBasic does have ALL . For not bloating the text , let's see the results of a speed test made by me (on Athlon 850 MHz). It calculates from i=1 to 1000000 the log of i and writes it in a binary file on disk (4 000 000 bytes).By doing the most optimised source code (especially to write buffers of 100000 bytes in a single cycle) the results are:
1. Borland C++ Builder 3 - 0.35 s(econds)
2. MS Fortran 5.1 - 0.66 s
3. MS Power Fortran Station for Win95 - 0.23 s
4. Ms VisualBasic 5 - 0.30 s
5. PureBasic - 0.24 s
That's all, The fun is back !, >
Horia - new registered PureBasic user
Horia
Hello ,
Since 1976 , I began on mainframes , then on PDP 11 with Fortran and Assembler . On PC - Microsoft Fortran(4.0 - 5.1) and MASM. I built my own IDE , my own graphical libraries ,simulated assembly in-line and a visual GUI like VB , for DOS VGA .I don't like Pascal and C ( ) . VB is fine , but ... , the same other languages ...PureBasic does have ALL . For not bloating the text , let's see the results of a speed test made by me (on Athlon 850 MHz). It calculates from i=1 to 1000000 the log of i and writes it in a binary file on disk (4 000 000 bytes).By doing the most optimised source code (especially to write buffers of 100000 bytes in a single cycle) the results are:1. Borland C++ Builder 3 - 0.35 s(econds)
2. MS Fortran 5.1 - 0.66 s
3. MS Power Fortran Station for Win95 - 0.23 s
4. Ms VisualBasic 5 - 0.30 s
5. PureBasic - 0.24 s
That's all, The fun is back !, >
Horia - new registered PureBasic user
Horia