Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:28:10 05/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 2000 at 02:31:04, Pete Galati wrote:
>On May 11, 2000 at 02:13:07, Adrien Regimbald wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>>>Is this inexpensive "Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 Standard" worth getting, or is
>>>>this a hopelessly stripped down version that would be basically useless.
>>>>
>>>>I was looking at it at Amazon and it's about 75$ and then there's a rebate, but
>>>>I can't tell from reading there promotional stuff if it can even compile a
>>>>useable program or if it'll be one of the deals where it'll only make a program
>>>>that'll only work from inside it's own IDE.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>Pete
>>>
>>>It's useless if you plan on optimizing your code for speed and many other
>>>things. So pretty much garbage IMO.
>>
>>I think your statement is a bit misleading..
>>
>>In terms of what is missing (assuming they haven't changed the format .. I've
>>owned previous versions of standard editions .. but currently have MSVC++ 6.0
>>Pro), it is basically compilation optimizing.
>>
>>The standard version should still be extremely useable for most of the things it
>>was truly intended for - design of GUI driven applications.
>>
>>If you are looking for a commercial compiler for chess programs though, the
>>standard edition of MSVC++ 6.0 will likely not be what you want. It is not
>>however, garbage! Compiling chess programs isn't even really what it is
>>intended for in the first place :P
>>
>>
>>Adrien.
>
>Would you estimate that it would maybe compile a Chess program that would be no
>faster than the average gcc?
GCC produces very good code.
For Chess Tiger I have just discovered that by using some different optimization
options it produces code that is as fast as the code generated by MSVC 6.0, SP3,
with maximise speed on. And this is an old version of GCC (2.7.x).
So the standard edition of MSVC6 will produce a code that will be much slower
than what you get with the free GCC.
Christophe
> In other words, would one of the biggest things
>I'd give up be the speed that MS compilers are know for, and basically I'd get a
>good package anyhow? Because I'm not really convinced that I have a real need
>to be turning out ultra fast programs, when a good learning tool might really be
>more effective (as long as it really can compile programs). And not that I have
>the backround to do it now, but I think creating a program & interface probably
>interests most people.
>
>Pete
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.