Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 02:37:55 11/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 1998 at 18:58:37, Don Dailey wrote: >On November 11, 1998 at 18:33:58, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > >> >>On November 11, 1998 at 08:08:10, Frank Schneider wrote: >> >>>On November 11, 1998 at 06:32:54, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On November 11, 1998 at 02:47:21, Frank Schneider wrote: >>>< most of the old message left out> >>> >>>>>b) There are Linux projects that try to offer the Windows32-api on Linux (Wine). >>>>> *IF* they become better porting a program to Linux would become easier. >>>>> About a year ago I tried to run Gromit1.2 under Linux (using a early >>>>> version of Wine) and it worked. Not perfectly, but one could play chess. >>> >>>>Hi Frank, >>>> >>>>Option (b) comes as something of a revelation to me! Do you suppose that 32-bit >>>>Windows Console Applications (ie "DOS box" programs with text-only screen) would >>>>run readily under linux using this technique? >> >> >>>If your program is a console program that doesn't open any windows itself >>>dosemu should be an option (see Ernst's message). I have no experience using >>>it, but it is said to be quiet good. I've heard some commercial DOS-programs >>>can be used in DOSEMU (was it here or in ccc???). >> >>This sounds like an excellent solution as long as dosemu can handle programs >>that run only under Windows version of DOS as comes with Win95/Win98/WinNT. The >>program uses the Windows API for screen, keyboard and file I/O. >> >>> >>>>I ask because my program is >>>>precisely that, a console application. Although it is compiled as a 32-bit >>>>Windows application, it uses no fancy graphics, no mouse support, and runs in >>>>full screen mode (ie no window) with a 50 line x 80 character display. Strangely >>>>enough, I manage to display a reasonable chess diagram in this restricted medium >>>>(not as good as Gromit's nice GUI though). I would hope that this would make my >>>>program an ideal application for WINE, since it uses only a simple subset of the >>>>Windows API, only requiring the API for screen, keyboard and file I/O. >> >>>Wine is more like an emulator and costs some performace (Gromit1.2 ran at >>>roughly 70% of the original speed). >>>However, Wine or dosemu could be two possibilities to run your program under >>>Linux. >> >>Oh dear only 70% is not too good. According to Ernst the dosemu program runs DOS >>programs at full speed, so perhaps this is my best bet. >> >> >>>> >>>>I wrote the program with PBCC, which is specifically a console compiler for >>>>32-bit Windows. The compiler manufacturers are intending to develop a version of >>>>the same compiler for linux, but I have no idea how long this will take. >> >>>I think dosemu or Wine would only help you, if your compiler could be used >>>under Linux. But if you start using Linux, why not use gcc/g++ as a compiler? >>> >>Ah, but this would mean learning a new language, not just a new compiler. I do >>not program in C, and even have to struggle to understand code written in C. >>PBCC is not a C compiler, it is a Basic compiler (PBCC stands for PowerBasic >>Console Compiler) and Assembler combination. That's why I was waiting for >>PowerBasic to release the linux version of PBCC >> >>> >>>> My >>>>general dissatisfaction with Windows has lead me to await the arrival of a >>>>linnux version of the compiler with considerable interest, but I have held off >>>>trying linnux so far because I thought that niether my program nor my compiler >>>>could run without the Windows API. If I was mistaken in this impression, I think >>>>I would like to give linnux a try without waiting for the linux version of the >>>>compiler. I hear linux is very stable :-) >> >>>From my point of view it is. I started using Linux (2.0.18) in 1995 and till now >>>I had not a single crash (tock tock tock.. ;-) I also use Win95 (and used >>>Win3.1, OS/2, Win NT) and I had many crashes, some causing loss of data. >> >>This sounds rather familiar. Everyone says how robust linux is, and I think that >>is a basic pre-requisite of any half-competent operating system, and is a >>requirement that appears to have escaped Micro$oft's attention. >> >>> >>> >>>>I only have to look sideways at >>>>Windows95 and it crashes.....:-( >>>> >>>>Best wishes, >>>>Roberto >>> >>>Suggestion: try to install the Cygnus development kit (free from >>>http://www.cygnus.com) which offers GNU-tools under windows. If you can >>>port your program to gcc/g++ under windows/cygnus, compiling it under Linux >>>should be trivial. >> >>Oh dear - the dreaded C language again. I may be unfashionable, but I like >>programming in Basic. I am game for learning to use a new operating system, but >>not for learning a new language at the same time. > >You're not unfashionable. Stay with the language and OS that works >best for you. Nothing wrong with basic. If you want super high >performance go to assembler, not C! Chances are unless you REALLY >know what you're doing assembler will not do as good as your compiler. > >- Don Hi Don, You are absolutely right - I find my PBCC generated code is very efficient, and I always test new bits of assembler against the previous compiler generated code for speed comparison. If the assembler is not really well done, the compiler is often faster! However, through experimentation I have found several key places where assembler can speed things up a fair bit. Most of the assembler code is in the evaluation function and the move making/unmaking procedures (including incrementally updating the attack maps). When the bit scan instructions can be used, it will usually speed up the code to use assembler, since the compiler does not offer a high level bit scan function of any kind. All told, I am very satisfied indeed with the compiler, and I certainly don't want to switch to another programming medium - the combination of intermixed high level language and low level assembler works very well. However, my operating system is another matter, and I suspect I could improve matters somewhat by upgrading from Win95 to Win NT(several people have suggested this), but I would rather avoid another MS operating system if there is a good alternative, like linux. My experiences with Win95 have caused me to lose all confidence in MS. So naturally I am very interested in the upsurge in popularity of linux, and I certainly intend to try this OS as soon as possible, but I would have one absolute requirement to be able to use my nice familiar PBCC compiler. This is about the only thing that has made me delay getting linux so far, but at least I know that a linux version of PBCC is "in the pipeline". And from what Frank and Ernst have said, perhaps I could even use the Dosemu program to run my executables under linux right now, even if I still have to actually compile them under windows for the time being. Best wishes, Roberto
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.