Requesting performance tests

[Marc van Breemen]

Hi,

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not judging the quality of PB with this
post.

What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.

Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

Again: I'm really interested in PB, but first want to be sure that it's
really fast as many say it is.

[Gerard Bok]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:57 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

There are plenty examples on the PB site (downloads).
Sources, exe, have fun !

[Marc van Breemen]

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:57 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

There are plenty examples on the PB site (downloads).
Sources, exe, have fun !

Where exactly? I see many example downloads, but afaik most are only code
without a compiled EXE. I don't have a copy of PB, so I can't compile them
myself. Plus I need code for timing performance.

[Gerard Bok]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:28:45 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:57 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

There are plenty examples on the PB site (downloads).
Sources, exe, have fun !

Where exactly? I see many example downloads, but afaik most are only code
without a compiled EXE. I don't have a copy of PB, so I can't compile them
myself. Plus I need code for timing performance.

PBcc:
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBCC%204.01%20Samples.zip
PBwin:
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBWin%208.01%20Samples.zip

[Marc van Breemen]

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:28:45 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:57 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

There are plenty examples on the PB site (downloads).
Sources, exe, have fun !

Where exactly? I see many example downloads, but afaik most are only code
without a compiled EXE. I don't have a copy of PB, so I can't compile them
myself. Plus I need code for timing performance.

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBCC%204.01%20Samples.zip
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBWin%208.01%20Samples.zip

Thanks / dank je,
This is what I need.

[Marc van Breemen]

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:28:45 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen

Post by Gerard Bok
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:28:57 +0200, "Marc van Breemen"

Post by Marc van Breemen
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.

There are plenty examples on the PB site (downloads).
Sources, exe, have fun !

Where exactly? I see many example downloads, but afaik most are only code
without a compiled EXE. I don't have a copy of PB, so I can't compile them
myself. Plus I need code for timing performance.

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBCC%204.01%20Samples.zip
http://www.powerbasic.com/support/downloads/files/PBWin%208.01%20Samples.zip

Hi Gerard,

These are certainly some pretty nice examples of what PB is capable of. I
couldn't however find an example with which I can compare speed. Are there
examples available with some (heavy) calculations that return a time (EXE
+ code)?

[Olav]

Post by Marc van Breemen
Hi,
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not judging the quality of PB with this
post.
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.
Again: I'm really interested in PB, but first want to be sure that it's
really fast as many say it is.

I am surprised that Bob Zale have not provided you with the info you are
requesting.
After all his concerns is always his customers - including potential
customers - need and requirements.
Well, if he does not provide you with information now; don't believe he will
provide you - with whatever info you will request in the future - if you
purchase first?

[H-Man]

Post by Marc van Breemen
Hi,
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not judging the quality of PB with this
post.
What I would like to do is test the speed of PB myself. As PB doesn't have
a trial version I'll need your help. Looking at the info on PB's website I
think that it's a great language. But on the other hand VB.NET, which I
use now, is also a great language. VB.NET scores better (imho) on things
like IDE and it's huge framework (intellisense, visual designer, etc).
What PB is better in, at least that's whats advertised, is speed.
Can you provide me with some compiled EXE's and it's sourcecode, so that I
can reproduce it in VB.NET and compare the speed.
Again: I'm really interested in PB, but first want to be sure that it's
really fast as many say it is.

Marc,

Maybe show your source in VB.NET, keeping it simple of course, and maybe
someone can port it to PB and upload an exe somewhere. It would be kinda
cool to see others get involved to, like C and C++, other basics like
FreeBasic, and something like FreePascal or Delphi, for a complete overall
picture of where you're at speed wise.

[Bob Zale]

Post by H-Man
Maybe show your source in VB.NET, keeping it simple of course, and maybe
someone can port it to PB and upload an exe somewhere. It would be kinda
cool to see others get involved to, like C and C++, other basics like
FreeBasic, and something like FreePascal or Delphi, for a complete overall
picture of where you're at speed wise.
HK

Marc posted an interesting little benchmark on the PowerBASIC Forums.
Now, we'd never suggest that a simple benchmark tells everything about
a compiler... but it's a good start. I would invite our friends to
visit and take a quick look at http://powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showthread.php?t=41410
It seems that your compiler of choice (Pure Basic) turned in a nice
elapsed time of around 29000 ms. But VB.NET ran it in just 11000 to
13000 ms. Of course, my personal favorite (PowerBASIC) performed
fairly well at just 9000 ms, and by applying optimization options
(like automatic FLOAT REGISTER VARIABLES), the elapsed time was
reduced to almost 5000 ms.

Best regards,

Bob Zale

[H-Man]

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Maybe show your source in VB.NET, keeping it simple of course, and maybe
someone can port it to PB and upload an exe somewhere. It would be kinda
cool to see others get involved to, like C and C++, other basics like
FreeBasic, and something like FreePascal or Delphi, for a complete overall
picture of where you're at speed wise.
HK

Marc posted an interesting little benchmark on the PowerBASIC Forums.
Now, we'd never suggest that a simple benchmark tells everything about
a compiler... but it's a good start. I would invite our friends to
visit and take a quick look at http://powerbasic.com/support/pbforums/showthread.php?t=41410
It seems that your compiler of choice (Pure Basic) turned in a nice
elapsed time of around 29000 ms. But VB.NET ran it in just 11000 to
13000 ms. Of course, my personal favorite (PowerBASIC) performed
fairly well at just 9000 ms, and by applying optimization options
(like automatic FLOAT REGISTER VARIABLES), the elapsed time was
reduced to almost 5000 ms.
Best regards,
Bob Zale

Bob, this is interesting, thanks for posting it!

Following the example John Gleason gave using your MID$ statement, I
modified the PureBasic example to also directly access the string locations
as opposed to building the string (I didn't touch the match part. On the
modest machine I'm working at right now (Athlon64 2.21GHz) John's example
benches in at about 5750mS where the PureBasic benches in at about 5950mS.
Executing from the IDE in PureBasic does not produce the fastest exe file,
for this one should compile and run outside of the IDE (for a fair
comparison). This kinda tells me that PureBasic has some work to do in
optimizing string handling.

Kudos to PowerBasic for their efficient string handling. The latest docs I
can find are for PB Win 8. Is the BUILD$ function something new?

I suppose .NET can be pretty fast if you exclude the time it takes for the
massive framework to load.

Either way, it's fun to make some comparisons.

[Bob Zale]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[H-Man]

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Bob, this is interesting, thanks for posting it!
...
Either way, it's fun to make some comparisons.
--
HK

My pleasure. It's really nice to talk to someone here who's polite
and honest! {smile}
Yes, BUILD$() is new in PB/WIN 9.0. You'll find the 100% complete
docs right on our web site. Just GOTO www.powerbasic.com and click
HELP DESK. You'll find all the details on BUILD$(), complete, but
optional, object support (yes, OOP), ARRAY SORT with a new custom sort
option, built-in assembler which supports 100% of the MMX and SIMD
opcodes, tons of DDT extensions, FIELD variables, bit field members of
UDT's, creation of COM servers / COM components, tons of GRAPHIC
extensions, IDISPINFO object, tons of COMMON CONTROL extensions, and
lots more.
I hope you read this quickly... before my "friends" try to cover it
up with pages and pages of misinformation! {smile}
Best regards,
Bob Zale
PowerBASIC Inc.

Thanks Bob,

Found it, very impressive!

[Bob Zale]

Post by H-Man
Thanks Bob,
Found it, very impressive!
--
HK

That's good to hear. I guess you aren't the only one... Here's
what Marc had to say about PowerBASIC and the PowerBASIC Forums:

"I'm convinced already. Not only by this simple test, but also due to
the great community here which I will definitely need now and then.
Sales of PB/Win9 has just gone up with +1 .... (or should I say INCR
1)"


Best regards,

Bob Zale

[H-Man]

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Thanks Bob,
Found it, very impressive!
--
HK

That's good to hear. I guess you aren't the only one... Here's
"I'm convinced already. Not only by this simple test, but also due to
the great community here which I will definitely need now and then.
Sales of PB/Win9 has just gone up with +1 .... (or should I say INCR
1)"
Best regards,
Bob Zale

Congratulations! I hope his relationship with PowerBasic is a long and
profitable one. For me, I'm still really satisfied with the PureBasic
product. It is IMO, good to stay informed about other available products
however.

[Marc van Breemen]

Post by H-Man

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Thanks Bob,
Found it, very impressive!
--
HK

That's good to hear. I guess you aren't the only one... Here's
"I'm convinced already. Not only by this simple test, but also due to
the great community here which I will definitely need now and then.
Sales of PB/Win9 has just gone up with +1 .... (or should I say INCR
1)"
Best regards,
Bob Zale

Congratulations! I hope his relationship with PowerBasic is a long and
profitable one. For me, I'm still really satisfied with the PureBasic
product. It is IMO, good to stay informed about other available products
however.

I surely hope so! It was a bit of a hard decision to do, because I
couldn't test it and it's a bit expensive for someone who only will use it
private (hobby); but maybe that will change. Besides that compared with
the luxury of VB.NET's IDE (intellisense, form editor etc) Powerbasic
feels like back to basic(s) ;) ...

I did it because I'm a bit nostalgic as an old TurboBasic 1.1 user. I
think PowerBasic will learn me a lot about the backgrounds of Windows
programming, also thank to the great documentation.

[H-Man]

Post by Marc van Breemen

Post by H-Man

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Thanks Bob,
Found it, very impressive!
--
HK

That's good to hear. I guess you aren't the only one... Here's
"I'm convinced already. Not only by this simple test, but also due to
the great community here which I will definitely need now and then.
Sales of PB/Win9 has just gone up with +1 .... (or should I say INCR
1)"
Best regards,
Bob Zale

Congratulations! I hope his relationship with PowerBasic is a long and
profitable one. For me, I'm still really satisfied with the PureBasic
product. It is IMO, good to stay informed about other available products
however.

I surely hope so! It was a bit of a hard decision to do, because I
couldn't test it and it's a bit expensive for someone who only will use it
private (hobby); but maybe that will change. Besides that compared with
the luxury of VB.NET's IDE (intellisense, form editor etc) Powerbasic
feels like back to basic(s) ;) ...

The cost and the IDE is why I chose PureBasic. PowerBasic has an admirable
history as a product and is certainly worth the price for those who use it
regularly. OTOH, my feeling is that I got better value in an (IMHO) equally
valuable product, and I absolutely love the language. Aren't choices
wonderful?

Post by Marc van Breemen
I did it because I'm a bit nostalgic as an old TurboBasic 1.1 user. I
think PowerBasic will learn me a lot about the backgrounds of Windows
programming, also thank to the great documentation.

I hope it works out for you, it seems that the forum is very active, you
can always get good help there. I've been looking at PowerBasic since the
old DOS days when I used QB4.5. Maybe one day I'll take the plunge, but for
now I am more than satisfied with my choice. I hope you are equally happy
with your choice. Most of all, have some fun ;)

[Marc van Breemen]

Post by H-Man

Post by Marc van Breemen

Post by H-Man

Post by Bob Zale

Post by H-Man
Thanks Bob,
Found it, very impressive!
--
HK

That's good to hear. I guess you aren't the only one... Here's
"I'm convinced already. Not only by this simple test, but also due to
the great community here which I will definitely need now and then.
Sales of PB/Win9 has just gone up with +1 .... (or should I say INCR
1)"
Best regards,
Bob Zale

Congratulations! I hope his relationship with PowerBasic is a long and
profitable one. For me, I'm still really satisfied with the PureBasic
product. It is IMO, good to stay informed about other available products
however.

I surely hope so! It was a bit of a hard decision to do, because I
couldn't test it and it's a bit expensive for someone who only will use it
private (hobby); but maybe that will change. Besides that compared with
the luxury of VB.NET's IDE (intellisense, form editor etc) Powerbasic
feels like back to basic(s) ;) ...

The cost and the IDE is why I chose PureBasic. PowerBasic has an admirable
history as a product and is certainly worth the price for those who use it
regularly. OTOH, my feeling is that I got better value in an (IMHO) equally
valuable product, and I absolutely love the language. Aren't choices
wonderful?

Post by Marc van Breemen
I did it because I'm a bit nostalgic as an old TurboBasic 1.1 user. I
think PowerBasic will learn me a lot about the backgrounds of Windows
programming, also thank to the great documentation.

I hope it works out for you, it seems that the forum is very active, you
can always get good help there. I've been looking at PowerBasic since the
old DOS days when I used QB4.5. Maybe one day I'll take the plunge, but for
now I am more than satisfied with my choice. I hope you are equally happy
with your choice. Most of all, have some fun ;)

PureBasic is a fine product and I can see why many people choose it. Imho
I do find it a bit less professional than PowerBasic. PureBasic and
PowerBasic are both very good alternatives for the big fat .NET languages
:).

[H-Man]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:30:03 +0200, Marc van Breemen wrote:

-snipped-

PureBasic and PowerBasic are both very good alternatives for the big fat .NET
languages:).

I couldn't agree more :))